Without question, of all the lectures I give, the one the prompts the most questions, sometimes even an avalanche of questions is my lecture on what Jesus and Paul actually say about singleness, marriage, and divorce. Obviously this is a sensitive subject since the church in our age, like the world,is experiencing so much brokenness, and pastors are desperately seeking guidance, handholds, wisdom to help them deal with the daily traumas of their flocks. Precisely because of this, I have been increasingly disturbed by what passes for exegesis of the key NT texts, even by those who profess to have a high view of Scripture and its relevance on these dicey subjects. Accordingly, I have decided to summarize a few of the insights that are already in print in my Women in the Ministry of Jesus, and Women in the Earliest Churches monographs I did lo these many years ago for Cambridge U. Press. The following is only some highlights.
The first point to make is that there is a rather broad range of agreement between what Jesus and Paul both say on these inter-related subjects. The essence of their views are as follows: 1) the eschatological age is now breaking into human history and with it God's final divine saving activity in and through Jesus; 2) this being the case what had been said before on the matters of marriage, divorce, and singleness is no longer adequate, since it was not addressed to the current salvation historical frame of reference. In short, new occasions teach new duties, and to those to whom more is given (by way of grace and divine help) more is required. In essence, both Jesus and Paul up the ante on fidelity and restrictions compared to what is mentioned in the OT about marriage and divorce. In fact Jesus even says that Moses made those rules due to the hardness of the human heart, but that that factor will no longer be taken into consideration now that the Kingdom is coming.
2) Jesus, followed by Paul, are perfectly clear that in light of the eschatological situation, it is no longer required, even of Jews, that they marry. The creation order mandate--- "be fruitful and multiple" (and the obligation to marry that goes with it) must now be seen as a blessed option, not an obligation for all of God's people. Now instead, as Paul puts it both getting married or remaining single need to be seen as a calling from God. One has to have the 'charisma' the grace gift, to properly undertake either state of being (see 1 Cor. 7), and there is a certain advantage to remaining single for the sake of the Kingdom, namely one has less earthly worries and anxieties about spouses, children, supporting them, and the like. The goodness of being single is emphasized, and Jesus' teaching about being a 'eunuch' for the sake of the Kingdom' becomes paradigmatic for many, as well as a justification for why he remained single (no, there was no Mrs. Jesus-- see my Gospel Code book).
This is a key point for the church today. Until we recover the proper teaching about singleness, and its goodness in Christ, and stop pressuring anyone and everyone in the church to get married, we have no business pontificating about marriage and its blessings. Too often, single persons in the church are simply viewed as 'candidates for dating and marriage' (never mind that the Bible says nothing at all about dating, or late Western notions about romance and courting). This is a trainwreck waiting to happen, and the result is many persons are pressured into marriage who are neither ready, nor have the grace gift to be in a marriage relationship. This in turn leads to numerous divorces-- and the endless cycle of matrimony, acrimony, and alimony receives another push.
I would especially remind one and all that we live in the most litigous age and litigous society on earth, and when you add to this the strong sense of self-justification and entitlement attitudes our narcissistic culture encourages, it is a recipe for endless strife and trouble to carelessly get married without the proper spiritual maturity and commitment on the part of both parties. The church does not exist for the sake of creating nuclear families. The primary family is the family of faith according to Jesus, and the nuclear family is to fit its agendas into those of the family of faith, not the other way around. A family church should be one that is a family to all who are present, single or married, not one that is merely an incubator for nuclear families.
3) Not all persons who get married in the church building have been "joined together by God". Think about it. In the first century A.D. when Jesus and Paul were speaking there were no church buildings, there were no certificates of marriage that were just like modern ones, and weddings, at least in early Judaism, did not require ordained rabbis to solemnize them. What then made a marriage a Biblical marriage if it wasn't the officiants, the piece of paper, or the locale where it transpired? The answer is that God led two people to be together, they made vows and promises in the presence of God and human witnesses and they agreed to 'plight their troth' to one another. That's it.
In fact, I would stress that a lot of Christian persons have raced into marriage ceremonies without really seeking out the spiritual basis for what they are doing, without really asking, Is God leading us together? Even Christians are capable of coupling themselves together, just as non-Christians do, without the permission, guidance, or blessing of God. If God has not joined them together, or if they are not prepared to submit their relationship to God after the fact and beseech God so he will indeed join and bless their togetherness, then they do not meet either the pre-requisites for what Jesus and Paul say about marriage, or the pre-requisites for what they say about divorce.
Christian marriage is a high and holy state. It is also a temporal relationship that does not continue into eternity but was given as an earthly blessing (see e.g. Rom. 7.1-4). We need to rethink just what counts as a Christian marriage, and what the criteria are for evaluating whether God has joined two persons together or not. Does the relationship manifest the fruit of the Spirit, for example, both before and after the marriage ceremony, or is it the hormones on overdrive that are dictating the dance? These questions need to be asked, and the answers may become uncomfortable. This is why no Christian marriage ceremonies should be performed without considerable pre-marital counseling first. The church ought not to be a broker for hatching, matching, and dispatching (baptisms, marriages, and funerals).
4) The essential position of both Jesus and Paul can be summarized as "celibacy in singleness and fidelity in marriage". Jesus talks about being a eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom (Mt. 19. 10-12) and Paul urges his audience to remain as he is--- single (1 Cor. 7), because they believe that by the grace of God it is possible to live in such a chaste condition, and be pleasing to God. In their view, no single person, of whatever sexual orientation should be engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage, which in the Bible is always defined as heterosexual monogamy. Of course Jesus is perfectly aware of the infidelities of the human heart, but he also believes that "greater is he who is in the believer than any of those forces in the world".
5) As 1 Cor. 7 makes evident, religiously mixed marriages in which only one partner is a Christian, are not viewed in the same way as Christian marriages. In regard to the mixed marriage Paul's wisdom is that if the unbeliever desires to depart, the believer is not 'bound' to maintain the relationship, though they may do so. The word for 'bound' here is the same word used for the marital bond. Apparently, Paul does not think non-Christian marriages come with a necessary 'until death do us part' clause. He says nothing about remarriage of divorced persons, but he does say that widows may remarry "only in the Lord".
6) the famous exception clauses in Mt. 5.32 and Mt. 19.9 do not refer to adultery, or as we euphemistically call it 'marital infidelity' The word 'porneia' there from which we get the term pornography, refers to either: 1) prostitution; 2) incest, or if it is used more generally 3) all sorts of sexual abberations including beastiality, incest, prostitution, pedophilia, and adultery. My point is this. The word for adultery is 'moixeia' and it is found already in the same context in Mt. 5.27. 'Porneia' is a different word with a different range of meaning, and it is never used to mean adultery quite specifically.
It is indeed possible that in Mt. 19 Jesus is commenting on the incestuous relationships like that of Herod Antipas and Herodias, which his cousin John 'lost his head' over for criticizing. In other words, the exception clause in its original context may mean "except on grounds of a marriage that wasn't a real marriage to begin with-- an incestuous one."
As should be clear from both Mk. 10 and 1 Cor. 7.10-11, Jesus' essential view is no divorce for those joined together by God. Of course Jesus also knows that divorces happen, which is why he warns "let no third party put asunder what God has joined together". The advice of both Jesus and Paul is that remarriage of a person whom God has joined to another can even be called commiting adultery against that first partner. It is not advised, except perhaps in the case of religously mixed marriages or those cases where both partners had been pagans or non-Christians to begin with. Neither Jesus nor Paul have anything to say about marriage completely outside the covenant community of believers.
This is more than enough to absorb from one blog, but I want to stress that these are inter-related matters-- one's views of human sexuality and what God intended for that, one's view of marriage, ones view of singleness, one's view of divorce.
As a footnote I would add that the usually passages trotted out from the Pastoral Epistles about being "the husband of one wife" (or as the Greek puts it "being a one woman man") do not refer either to a requirement for an elder or deacon to be married, nor do they refer to a requirment that they only have been married once, nor to a polemic against polygamy. This pithy phrases refers simply to the elder or deacon (who are assumed to be married already, but not required to be so) being faithful to their one and only spouse.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Monday, September 26, 2005
Tour Time-- The Trip of a Lifetime, June 2006
Just a brief announcement to let you know that once again I will be leading a tour to two of the Lands of the Bible on behalf of Asbury Seminary. We will be spending a week in Israel and a week in Turkey between June 19th-July 3rd 2006. Inasmuch as we will have only limited seating (we will all be together in one large bus) we have only 50 spots for this tour. This will not be a cosmetic 'shopping' tour, though of course there will be time to get some souvenirs and Christmas presents. We will be visiting various of the major Christian and archaeological sites and I will be lecturing on the sites-- this includes Jerusalem, Bethelem, Nazareth, Capernaum, Bethsaida, Qumran, Masada, Ephesus, Pergamon, Sardis, Laodicea, Colossae, Istanbul and many other sites. Furthermore we will be on pilgrimage, as this is intended to be a spiritually formative journey. If any of you out there in the blogosphere are interesting in going, my advice would be to sign up now by contacting Ms. Tammy Cessna at the seminary at Tammy_Cessna@asburyseminary.edu.
A good and blessed time will be had by all.
A good and blessed time will be had by all.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
The Christian's Duty to the Poor
What follows here is a quotation of a part of a sermon that John Chrysostom, perhaps the greatest preacher of the early church gave on a portion of Hebrews and Mt. 5.2.
"'Give to him who begs from you and do not refuse him who would borrow from you.' Stretch out your hand; let it not be closed up. We have not been constituted examiners into others' lives, for then we should have compassion on no one. When you call upon Gold, why do you say, 'Remember not my sins?' So, even if that person is a great sinner, make this allowance in his case also, and do not remember his sins. It is a season of kindness, not of strict enquiry; of mercy, not of account" Err on the side of compassion, not caution.
"The frost is hard, and the poor man is cast out in rags, well-nigh dead, with his teeth chattering. Both by his looks and his air you should be moved. And yet, you pass by, warm and full of drink. How do you expect that God should deliver you when in misfortune? And often you will say to yourself, 'If I had found one that had done many wrong things, I would have forgiven him, so won't God forgive me?' Do not say this. You neglect the one who has done you no wrong, yet you would be able to help. How will he forgive you when you are sinning against him?"
"And it does not even stop here. Immediately accusations are brought against the suppliant. For why does he not work, you say? And why is he to be maintained in idleness? But, tell me, is it by working that you have what you have? Did you not receive it as an inheritance from your fathers? And even if you work, is this a reason why you should reproach another? Do you not hear what Paul says? For after saying 'If anyone will not work, let him not eat,' he says 'Do not be weary in well doing.' But what do they say? He is an impostor. What do you say, o man? Do you call him an impostor for the sake of a single loaf of bread or a garment? But you say, 'He will sell it immediately.' And do you manage all your affairs well? But what? Are all poor through idleness? Is no one so from calamity or shipwreck? None from lawsuits? None from being robbed? None from dangers? None from illness? None from other difficulties? If however we hear anyone bewailing such evils and crying out loud and looking up naked toward heaven, with long hair and clad in rags, at once we call him 'The impostor! That deceiver! The swindler!' Are you not ashamed? Whom do you call impostor? Do you accuse the man or give him a hard time? But you say 'he has means and pretends'. This is a charge against yourself, not against him. He knows he has to deal with the cruel, with wild beasts rather than rational persons. He knows that even if he tells his pitable story, no one pays any attention. And on this account he is forced to assume an even more miserable guise, that he may melt your heart. If we see a person coming to beg in a respectable dress, 'This is an impostor' you say, 'and he comes in this way that he may be supposed to be of good birth.' If we see one in the contrary apparel, we reproach him too. What then are they to do. Oh the cruelty, oh the inhumanity! And why, you say, 'do they expose their maimed limbs?' Do you not see it is because of you? If we were truly compassionate, they would have no need of these artifices. If they persuaded us at the first appeal, they would not have contrived thesed devices. Who is there so wretched as to be willing to behave in an unseemly way, as to be willing to make public lamentations, with his wife destitute of clothing, with his children, to sprinkle ashes on himself? How much worse than poverty are these things?" Surely the lose of all personal dignity is more humilitating than poverty.
John Chrysostom-- Homily on Hebrews 11.7-9.
"'Give to him who begs from you and do not refuse him who would borrow from you.' Stretch out your hand; let it not be closed up. We have not been constituted examiners into others' lives, for then we should have compassion on no one. When you call upon Gold, why do you say, 'Remember not my sins?' So, even if that person is a great sinner, make this allowance in his case also, and do not remember his sins. It is a season of kindness, not of strict enquiry; of mercy, not of account" Err on the side of compassion, not caution.
"The frost is hard, and the poor man is cast out in rags, well-nigh dead, with his teeth chattering. Both by his looks and his air you should be moved. And yet, you pass by, warm and full of drink. How do you expect that God should deliver you when in misfortune? And often you will say to yourself, 'If I had found one that had done many wrong things, I would have forgiven him, so won't God forgive me?' Do not say this. You neglect the one who has done you no wrong, yet you would be able to help. How will he forgive you when you are sinning against him?"
"And it does not even stop here. Immediately accusations are brought against the suppliant. For why does he not work, you say? And why is he to be maintained in idleness? But, tell me, is it by working that you have what you have? Did you not receive it as an inheritance from your fathers? And even if you work, is this a reason why you should reproach another? Do you not hear what Paul says? For after saying 'If anyone will not work, let him not eat,' he says 'Do not be weary in well doing.' But what do they say? He is an impostor. What do you say, o man? Do you call him an impostor for the sake of a single loaf of bread or a garment? But you say, 'He will sell it immediately.' And do you manage all your affairs well? But what? Are all poor through idleness? Is no one so from calamity or shipwreck? None from lawsuits? None from being robbed? None from dangers? None from illness? None from other difficulties? If however we hear anyone bewailing such evils and crying out loud and looking up naked toward heaven, with long hair and clad in rags, at once we call him 'The impostor! That deceiver! The swindler!' Are you not ashamed? Whom do you call impostor? Do you accuse the man or give him a hard time? But you say 'he has means and pretends'. This is a charge against yourself, not against him. He knows he has to deal with the cruel, with wild beasts rather than rational persons. He knows that even if he tells his pitable story, no one pays any attention. And on this account he is forced to assume an even more miserable guise, that he may melt your heart. If we see a person coming to beg in a respectable dress, 'This is an impostor' you say, 'and he comes in this way that he may be supposed to be of good birth.' If we see one in the contrary apparel, we reproach him too. What then are they to do. Oh the cruelty, oh the inhumanity! And why, you say, 'do they expose their maimed limbs?' Do you not see it is because of you? If we were truly compassionate, they would have no need of these artifices. If they persuaded us at the first appeal, they would not have contrived thesed devices. Who is there so wretched as to be willing to behave in an unseemly way, as to be willing to make public lamentations, with his wife destitute of clothing, with his children, to sprinkle ashes on himself? How much worse than poverty are these things?" Surely the lose of all personal dignity is more humilitating than poverty.
John Chrysostom-- Homily on Hebrews 11.7-9.
Saturday, September 24, 2005
Broken Flowers for Broken Relationships
Bill Murray's latest offering, Broken Flowers, which won highest honors at the Cannes Film Festival, is now circulating in the theaters in a limited release. Like his release from a couple of years back, 'Lost in Translation', this is a serious film, as Murray continues to demonstrate he can do drama as well as comedy. Also like that previous film, Murray plays a rather burned-out middle aged person who seems incapable of sustaining meaningful enduring relationships with women, despite or perhaps because of his considerable reputation as a lothario.
In Broken Flowers Murray plays Don Johnston, a deliberate punning on the former star of Miami Vice Don Johnson. The movie opens as well with Murray watching an old classic film about Don Juan, the man who lost his life because he had one lover too many. The theme that there is a cost to having a string of relationships with women none of which end in marriage is set from the beginning, and Murray plays out the script of being someone who has both been burned, and is now burned out In this film there are many curious connections meant to make us wonder whether there might be a larger design to life, but Johnston is clearly incapable of figuring out what it might be.
The movie begins with Murray receiving a letter on pink stationery with no return address and no signature announcing that twenty years previously he had fathered a child. Johnston doesn't really much react to this announcement nor is he really at all sure that it is true, but when he shows the letter to his neighbor Winston, Winston insists that he must list, and then track down his previous lovers and find out whether this claim is true. In fact Winston goes so far as to book Johnston on planes and gets him rental cars and maps. Winston, is much more curious to get to the bottom of the matter than Don Johnston is.
Johnston is reluctant but acquieses and we are off on mapquest to find out what the truth is about the progeny. Johnston even follows the script of what to do given him by Winston, as otherwise he would be clueless. He is to go to each one looking classy, bring them pink flowers and in an indirect manner look for clues to the truth as to which woman could have sent him the letter, and whether what the letter claims is true or not. The encounters with these women (four in number) range from the sublimated to the ridiculous, and we are left to piece things together for ourselves. None of the women say they have a son, but then Johnston mostly tries to ferret this information out indirectly rather than directly. The movie ends with Johnston back home but having an apparently 'chance' meeting with a young man--- who may or may not be his son.
It is hard to generate much sympathy for Murray's character as he seems more like "a patient etherized upon a table" to use a line from T.S.Eliot, than like a vibrant lover of life and women. But one thing that comes through loud and clear in the movie is that a string of short term sexual encounters does not an enduring relationship make. Instead of such encounters leading one to be more alive or lively or vibrant, they in fact have a deadening and cheapening effect.
Meaningless sex leads not to one becoming more capable of loving, but rather becoming incapable of love, commitment, or much of anything vital. The end result of playing this part this way is that Murray becomes the poster child for what is meant by dead pan acting. Though a few things surprise him and frighten him, and he is a little curious about whether he has a son or not, nothing really moves him or causes him to engage with life.
This movie is almost like something the old existentialists like Sartre would have created had they made movies. Life lacks meaning, therefore one seeks pleasure. One obtains pleasure, only to discover that it too can be without meaning, and does nothing to fill up the void in one's life, the great need for genuine and lasting love. Instead of seeking meaning and purpose elsewhere, one simply tries pleasure over and over again. But alas, the God-shaped vaccuum in a human life can only be filled by God, as another Frenchman, Pascal said.
This movie is not for everyone, but it does indeed expose a raw truth-- pleasure does not necessarily vivify a person. Indeed it may do the opposite, and is certainly no substitute for real love. And more to the point being a serial lover always has a cost. Broken relationships like broken flowers quickly die and look sad and pathetic in the process, leaving persons grasping at straws and wondering what might have been. Murray plays the part of the man with endless ennui to the hilt. It's not very exciting to watch, but it very effectively makes its point about life.
In an odd and indirect way, this movie is a powerful testimony that life without Christ can indeed be boring, bothersome, worrisome, troublesome and ultimately unfulfilling.
In Broken Flowers Murray plays Don Johnston, a deliberate punning on the former star of Miami Vice Don Johnson. The movie opens as well with Murray watching an old classic film about Don Juan, the man who lost his life because he had one lover too many. The theme that there is a cost to having a string of relationships with women none of which end in marriage is set from the beginning, and Murray plays out the script of being someone who has both been burned, and is now burned out In this film there are many curious connections meant to make us wonder whether there might be a larger design to life, but Johnston is clearly incapable of figuring out what it might be.
The movie begins with Murray receiving a letter on pink stationery with no return address and no signature announcing that twenty years previously he had fathered a child. Johnston doesn't really much react to this announcement nor is he really at all sure that it is true, but when he shows the letter to his neighbor Winston, Winston insists that he must list, and then track down his previous lovers and find out whether this claim is true. In fact Winston goes so far as to book Johnston on planes and gets him rental cars and maps. Winston, is much more curious to get to the bottom of the matter than Don Johnston is.
Johnston is reluctant but acquieses and we are off on mapquest to find out what the truth is about the progeny. Johnston even follows the script of what to do given him by Winston, as otherwise he would be clueless. He is to go to each one looking classy, bring them pink flowers and in an indirect manner look for clues to the truth as to which woman could have sent him the letter, and whether what the letter claims is true or not. The encounters with these women (four in number) range from the sublimated to the ridiculous, and we are left to piece things together for ourselves. None of the women say they have a son, but then Johnston mostly tries to ferret this information out indirectly rather than directly. The movie ends with Johnston back home but having an apparently 'chance' meeting with a young man--- who may or may not be his son.
It is hard to generate much sympathy for Murray's character as he seems more like "a patient etherized upon a table" to use a line from T.S.Eliot, than like a vibrant lover of life and women. But one thing that comes through loud and clear in the movie is that a string of short term sexual encounters does not an enduring relationship make. Instead of such encounters leading one to be more alive or lively or vibrant, they in fact have a deadening and cheapening effect.
Meaningless sex leads not to one becoming more capable of loving, but rather becoming incapable of love, commitment, or much of anything vital. The end result of playing this part this way is that Murray becomes the poster child for what is meant by dead pan acting. Though a few things surprise him and frighten him, and he is a little curious about whether he has a son or not, nothing really moves him or causes him to engage with life.
This movie is almost like something the old existentialists like Sartre would have created had they made movies. Life lacks meaning, therefore one seeks pleasure. One obtains pleasure, only to discover that it too can be without meaning, and does nothing to fill up the void in one's life, the great need for genuine and lasting love. Instead of seeking meaning and purpose elsewhere, one simply tries pleasure over and over again. But alas, the God-shaped vaccuum in a human life can only be filled by God, as another Frenchman, Pascal said.
This movie is not for everyone, but it does indeed expose a raw truth-- pleasure does not necessarily vivify a person. Indeed it may do the opposite, and is certainly no substitute for real love. And more to the point being a serial lover always has a cost. Broken relationships like broken flowers quickly die and look sad and pathetic in the process, leaving persons grasping at straws and wondering what might have been. Murray plays the part of the man with endless ennui to the hilt. It's not very exciting to watch, but it very effectively makes its point about life.
In an odd and indirect way, this movie is a powerful testimony that life without Christ can indeed be boring, bothersome, worrisome, troublesome and ultimately unfulfilling.
Monday, September 19, 2005
A Myth of Origins: America's Christian Founding Fathers?
It is always a surprise, and sometimes very painful to have one's bubble burst. This is all the more so when it has to do with something or someone a persons loves deeply and is deeply commited to. Take for example our country. It is not a very old country by global standards. Our less than 250 years of actual nationhood pales in comparison to a country like Egypt which has been extant for thousands of years. One would think with such a short history we could get the facts right about the religious character of our nation, and the beliefs of its founding fathers--- but apparently what we as Christians often wish was true, colors how we read our history so strongly that we cannot believe it could be otherwise.
Now before I go further I want to stress that of course plenty of the first persons who came to America were devout Christians--- both Protestant and Catholic. Not for nothing is Mary-land named for Jesus' mother, or Pennslyvania named for the great Quaker William Penn. Then too, Providence Rhode Island came by its name from its Christian leaders. We could go down this road a rather long way. We could recount for instance how Harvard was founded as a school for the training of Evangelical clergy and when it became too liberal in the minds of many Yale was founded as the antidote and when it became too liberal in the minds of many Princeton was founded by persons who made Jonathan Edwards, America's greatest early native theologian, its first real head. We could talk about why institutions of higher learning founded on Christian principles often go native within a generation.
What I am interested in however in this posting is the persons who framed our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, not to mention the Bill of Rights. More partricularly I am interested in the real architects of these documents, especially the Declaration of Independence.
What one discovers on close scrutiny is that it is not Christians, but rather Deists (Unitarians as they called themselves) who were most influential. Though I could talk about George Washington and his Masonic faith in the syncretistic rites of the Masons (one part Christian, one part Jewish, one part Egyptian--- look at the Pyramid on George's dollar bill sometime, and ask yourself where that came from), or I could talk about free thinkers and radicals like Thomas Paine. But I must focus on Thomas Jefferson the intellectual heavyweight of the period, and close friend to John Adams. These two of course were the second and third Presidents of our nation, and they shared common views on the blessings of Unitarianism.
I provide here an excerpt from a letter which Jefferson wrote to James Smith in 1822, a Unitarian pamphlet writer, only shortly before Jefferson died. He shared the same sentiments about this matter as did John Adams. In order to understand this letter one needs to keep three things in mind: 1) by 'primitive Christianity' what Jefferson means is Christianity shorn of its supernatural character--- without miracles, without the Trinity, without the resurrection. He is talking about the image of 'primitive Christianity' he was helping to create himself by his Jeffersonian Bible-- a Jesus Seminar kind of Bible with all the miracles in the NT snipped out, leaving us with the Sermon on the Mount and other ethical teachings. 2) the three headed dog Cerberus from Greco-Roman mythology is the point of comparison for his derogatory comment about the Trinity; 3) Unitarians were rationalists and Deists. They were the split offs from the controversial battles fought by the Congregationalists, originally in New England, who divided between Trinitarians, which is to say traditional Christians, and Unitarians.
Here is Jefferson's letter to James Smith written in 1822:
"I have to thank you for your pamphlets on the subject of Unitarianism, and to express my gratification with your efforts for the revival of primitive Christianity in your quarter. No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded [i.e. not three persons in one God], was that of the early ages of Christianity; and was one of the most efficacious doctrines which gave it triumph over the polytheism of the ancients, sickened with the absurdities of their own theology. Nor was the unity of the Supreme Being ousted by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded at the will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs. And a strong proof of the solidity of the primitive faith, is its restoration, as soon as a nation arises which vindicates to itself the freedom of religion opinion, and its external divorce from the civil authority. The pure and simple unity of the Creator of the universe is all but ascendant in the eastern states; it is dawning in the west, and advancing towards the south; and I confidently expect that the present generation will see Unitarianism become the general religion of the United States."
In another letter written at about the same time Jefferson shared his confidence that "I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." (These quotes and more can easily be found in David Hempton's fine study entitled Methodism. Empire of the Spirit (New Haven: Yale, 2005, p. 48).
Our founding fathers and the chief drafters of America's foundational documents wanted at all costs to avoid having a State or national church endorsed and under the patronage of government. Even more they wanted to avoid have a church which shaped, or partially controlled the government. There had been too many religious wars in Europe and they wanted to avoid that scenario in America--- which of course was a noble aim. The principle of 'freedom of religion' is of course not one found in the Bible strictly speaking. Elijah, for example in 1 Kngs. 18, was hardly an advocate of 'freedom of religion' when he attacked the prophets of Baal, but then Israel was hardly a democracy anyway, nor was Jesus' vision of the kingdom democratic. These entities were intended to be benevolent monarchies, though as you will remember, God was loath to give Israel a king in the first place.
One thing we must never do is make the mistake of equating Israel with America. America has always been a nation commited to pluralism (remember 'e pluribus unum'), though it has always debated how much pluralism was too much. Democracy of a sort, and freedom of religion was the sanction needed to allow for that sort of pluralism. Of course it is true that the Founding Fathers did think we could be united, whether Christian or Jew or even native American, in a belief in one God, in divine providence, in ethical principles (many of them from the Bible including the ten commandments) to undergird the nation.
Modern pluralism goes way beyond what the Founding Fathers could have conceived as either true or good, and indeed they did see the minimal beliefs of Deism as something that could unite everyone. It was a least common denominator sort of religious foundation for the nation, and its principles of respect for difference, open and free inquiry, no religion imposed on anyone had numerous merits when compared to the ugly spectacle of Christians killing each other over their differences in religious beliefs.
Another myth that dies hard is that we have written down somewhere in our founding documents the principle of 'separation of church and state'. Actually that is not in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence at all. It was however an undergirding principle of various of our founders in an attempt to avoid European religious scenarios. America's founding documents reflect the individualism (often of a radical sort if one reads Thomas Paine), rationalism and empiricism and even eudaemonism of our founders (noting the clause on the individual pursuit of happiness rather than holiness). These things made good sense then with the rise of the industrial revolution on the not too distant horizon.
In other words, our founding documents owe more to the libertarian sentiments of the Enlightenment than to the Bible. Our founding fathers believed democratic government could help set the people free--- one did not need to wait for revivals and Jesus and the Holy Spirit to do the job. Of course it is true that democracy has many virtues, and probably is the best sort of government found on earth. It is certainly far closer in many ways to Biblical ideals than communism.
But by the same token we need to be honest about the founding of our nation, and the beliefs of its founding fathers. We need to recognize that America was not founded to be a Christian nation if by Christian we mean orthodox Christianity that believes in a supernatural Gospel, a Trinity, a virginal conception, a bodily resurrection, an atoning death of Jesus, or the Bible as divine revelation. Perhaps you may have noticed that the quote from Jefferson places him in the camp of the Dan Brown's of this world who blame Constantine and Athanasius for orthodoxy, not realizing that Trinitarian thinking about God already existed in the first century A.D. as any careful reader of the NT can see.
The question then I wish to pose is--- if Christians should give up the quest to 'get back to Christian America', what then should we do? I would suggest we should go forward towards a Christianity in America that does a better job of being an advocate for its own position in all spheres of life and public discourse, not retreating into the narrow bubbles of holy conventicles, churches, home schools and the like.
If we really want to help our nation to go to Hades in a handbasket more quickly we can continue to retreat into our holy huddles, counting on the separation of church and state to protect us--- when ironically there is no such written down principle in our founding documents.
"Greater is he who is in us, than is in the world" should be our battle cry, or perhaps let us "take captive every thought for Christ". We must work and pray for revival not just of ourselves but of our whole nation. Escapist religion must be avoided. As John Wesley said there is no spiritual Gospel without the social Gospel. Indeed so, and we may say that while Christianity is a deeply personal matter, it was never intended to be a private matter--- we are after all called to make disciples of all the nations. Even our own. May it be so in our lifetime.
Now before I go further I want to stress that of course plenty of the first persons who came to America were devout Christians--- both Protestant and Catholic. Not for nothing is Mary-land named for Jesus' mother, or Pennslyvania named for the great Quaker William Penn. Then too, Providence Rhode Island came by its name from its Christian leaders. We could go down this road a rather long way. We could recount for instance how Harvard was founded as a school for the training of Evangelical clergy and when it became too liberal in the minds of many Yale was founded as the antidote and when it became too liberal in the minds of many Princeton was founded by persons who made Jonathan Edwards, America's greatest early native theologian, its first real head. We could talk about why institutions of higher learning founded on Christian principles often go native within a generation.
What I am interested in however in this posting is the persons who framed our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, not to mention the Bill of Rights. More partricularly I am interested in the real architects of these documents, especially the Declaration of Independence.
What one discovers on close scrutiny is that it is not Christians, but rather Deists (Unitarians as they called themselves) who were most influential. Though I could talk about George Washington and his Masonic faith in the syncretistic rites of the Masons (one part Christian, one part Jewish, one part Egyptian--- look at the Pyramid on George's dollar bill sometime, and ask yourself where that came from), or I could talk about free thinkers and radicals like Thomas Paine. But I must focus on Thomas Jefferson the intellectual heavyweight of the period, and close friend to John Adams. These two of course were the second and third Presidents of our nation, and they shared common views on the blessings of Unitarianism.
I provide here an excerpt from a letter which Jefferson wrote to James Smith in 1822, a Unitarian pamphlet writer, only shortly before Jefferson died. He shared the same sentiments about this matter as did John Adams. In order to understand this letter one needs to keep three things in mind: 1) by 'primitive Christianity' what Jefferson means is Christianity shorn of its supernatural character--- without miracles, without the Trinity, without the resurrection. He is talking about the image of 'primitive Christianity' he was helping to create himself by his Jeffersonian Bible-- a Jesus Seminar kind of Bible with all the miracles in the NT snipped out, leaving us with the Sermon on the Mount and other ethical teachings. 2) the three headed dog Cerberus from Greco-Roman mythology is the point of comparison for his derogatory comment about the Trinity; 3) Unitarians were rationalists and Deists. They were the split offs from the controversial battles fought by the Congregationalists, originally in New England, who divided between Trinitarians, which is to say traditional Christians, and Unitarians.
Here is Jefferson's letter to James Smith written in 1822:
"I have to thank you for your pamphlets on the subject of Unitarianism, and to express my gratification with your efforts for the revival of primitive Christianity in your quarter. No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded [i.e. not three persons in one God], was that of the early ages of Christianity; and was one of the most efficacious doctrines which gave it triumph over the polytheism of the ancients, sickened with the absurdities of their own theology. Nor was the unity of the Supreme Being ousted by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded at the will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs. And a strong proof of the solidity of the primitive faith, is its restoration, as soon as a nation arises which vindicates to itself the freedom of religion opinion, and its external divorce from the civil authority. The pure and simple unity of the Creator of the universe is all but ascendant in the eastern states; it is dawning in the west, and advancing towards the south; and I confidently expect that the present generation will see Unitarianism become the general religion of the United States."
In another letter written at about the same time Jefferson shared his confidence that "I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." (These quotes and more can easily be found in David Hempton's fine study entitled Methodism. Empire of the Spirit (New Haven: Yale, 2005, p. 48).
Our founding fathers and the chief drafters of America's foundational documents wanted at all costs to avoid having a State or national church endorsed and under the patronage of government. Even more they wanted to avoid have a church which shaped, or partially controlled the government. There had been too many religious wars in Europe and they wanted to avoid that scenario in America--- which of course was a noble aim. The principle of 'freedom of religion' is of course not one found in the Bible strictly speaking. Elijah, for example in 1 Kngs. 18, was hardly an advocate of 'freedom of religion' when he attacked the prophets of Baal, but then Israel was hardly a democracy anyway, nor was Jesus' vision of the kingdom democratic. These entities were intended to be benevolent monarchies, though as you will remember, God was loath to give Israel a king in the first place.
One thing we must never do is make the mistake of equating Israel with America. America has always been a nation commited to pluralism (remember 'e pluribus unum'), though it has always debated how much pluralism was too much. Democracy of a sort, and freedom of religion was the sanction needed to allow for that sort of pluralism. Of course it is true that the Founding Fathers did think we could be united, whether Christian or Jew or even native American, in a belief in one God, in divine providence, in ethical principles (many of them from the Bible including the ten commandments) to undergird the nation.
Modern pluralism goes way beyond what the Founding Fathers could have conceived as either true or good, and indeed they did see the minimal beliefs of Deism as something that could unite everyone. It was a least common denominator sort of religious foundation for the nation, and its principles of respect for difference, open and free inquiry, no religion imposed on anyone had numerous merits when compared to the ugly spectacle of Christians killing each other over their differences in religious beliefs.
Another myth that dies hard is that we have written down somewhere in our founding documents the principle of 'separation of church and state'. Actually that is not in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence at all. It was however an undergirding principle of various of our founders in an attempt to avoid European religious scenarios. America's founding documents reflect the individualism (often of a radical sort if one reads Thomas Paine), rationalism and empiricism and even eudaemonism of our founders (noting the clause on the individual pursuit of happiness rather than holiness). These things made good sense then with the rise of the industrial revolution on the not too distant horizon.
In other words, our founding documents owe more to the libertarian sentiments of the Enlightenment than to the Bible. Our founding fathers believed democratic government could help set the people free--- one did not need to wait for revivals and Jesus and the Holy Spirit to do the job. Of course it is true that democracy has many virtues, and probably is the best sort of government found on earth. It is certainly far closer in many ways to Biblical ideals than communism.
But by the same token we need to be honest about the founding of our nation, and the beliefs of its founding fathers. We need to recognize that America was not founded to be a Christian nation if by Christian we mean orthodox Christianity that believes in a supernatural Gospel, a Trinity, a virginal conception, a bodily resurrection, an atoning death of Jesus, or the Bible as divine revelation. Perhaps you may have noticed that the quote from Jefferson places him in the camp of the Dan Brown's of this world who blame Constantine and Athanasius for orthodoxy, not realizing that Trinitarian thinking about God already existed in the first century A.D. as any careful reader of the NT can see.
The question then I wish to pose is--- if Christians should give up the quest to 'get back to Christian America', what then should we do? I would suggest we should go forward towards a Christianity in America that does a better job of being an advocate for its own position in all spheres of life and public discourse, not retreating into the narrow bubbles of holy conventicles, churches, home schools and the like.
If we really want to help our nation to go to Hades in a handbasket more quickly we can continue to retreat into our holy huddles, counting on the separation of church and state to protect us--- when ironically there is no such written down principle in our founding documents.
"Greater is he who is in us, than is in the world" should be our battle cry, or perhaps let us "take captive every thought for Christ". We must work and pray for revival not just of ourselves but of our whole nation. Escapist religion must be avoided. As John Wesley said there is no spiritual Gospel without the social Gospel. Indeed so, and we may say that while Christianity is a deeply personal matter, it was never intended to be a private matter--- we are after all called to make disciples of all the nations. Even our own. May it be so in our lifetime.
Monday, September 12, 2005
Katrina Reprise-- And Now for Something Completely Different
Well it was bound to happen. We now have the ultimate answer to the trivia question--- What do the fundamentalist Christian TV preacher and the head of Al Quaeda in Iraq have in common? Answer--- they both think that Hurricane Katrina is a judgment of God on American sin!
Yes, I kid you not, today Mssr. Al Zarqawi was on the news claiming that Hurricane Katrina was not only an act of God's judgment on American sin, a reprisal for the destruction we have wreaked on Afghanistan and Iraq, but in fact he claims that the hurricane is an answer to prayer--- namely the prayers of those who are part of Al Quaeda. When fundamentalist preachers and Al Quaeda operatives agree on something it is time to ask--- What's wrong with this picture?
Perhaps, we have forgotten entirely about the story of Abraham praying for Sodom and bargaining with God to spare the city (Gen. 18.16-33). Notice that in that story God spares Sodom if there are even ten righteous persons in the whole city. Abraham is persuasive in the story based on the rhetorical question "Will God sweep away the righteous with the wicked?" The answer to the question is no. God has better aim than that for one thing, and secondly the God of the Bible is compassionate over and over again even on recalitrant sinners (see e.g. Hosea 11.8-11--- thank goodness God is not like us in this regard). One can surely make the case that Biloxi, Gulport, New Orleans had more than ten righteous believers in them. Consideration of this sort of text should have eliminated some of the flippant rhetoric we have heard on Christian TV of late.
Or we could consider the brief story of Jesus' disciples asking whether they should call down fire from heaven on a village in Samaria that had not provided hospitality to the disciples (Lk. 9.54-55). Jesus' response is to rebuke the disciples for seeking judgment for those who reject them.
For the Christian person, the bottom line in this sort of discussion, however trite it may sound, is--- Would Jesus have suggested that the devastation that hit the gulf coast was a judgment of God? Or, would he perhaps have said of those cities what he says elsewhere about Sodom and Gomorrah, Korazin and Bethsaida--- that divine judgment of such places will not arrive until the Day of Judgment (Lk. 10.13-15). Judgment of that sort awaits the eschatological conclusion of history. Such texts ought at the very least to make us reticent to make snap judgments on why devastation fell on the Gulf Coast.
Yes, I kid you not, today Mssr. Al Zarqawi was on the news claiming that Hurricane Katrina was not only an act of God's judgment on American sin, a reprisal for the destruction we have wreaked on Afghanistan and Iraq, but in fact he claims that the hurricane is an answer to prayer--- namely the prayers of those who are part of Al Quaeda. When fundamentalist preachers and Al Quaeda operatives agree on something it is time to ask--- What's wrong with this picture?
Perhaps, we have forgotten entirely about the story of Abraham praying for Sodom and bargaining with God to spare the city (Gen. 18.16-33). Notice that in that story God spares Sodom if there are even ten righteous persons in the whole city. Abraham is persuasive in the story based on the rhetorical question "Will God sweep away the righteous with the wicked?" The answer to the question is no. God has better aim than that for one thing, and secondly the God of the Bible is compassionate over and over again even on recalitrant sinners (see e.g. Hosea 11.8-11--- thank goodness God is not like us in this regard). One can surely make the case that Biloxi, Gulport, New Orleans had more than ten righteous believers in them. Consideration of this sort of text should have eliminated some of the flippant rhetoric we have heard on Christian TV of late.
Or we could consider the brief story of Jesus' disciples asking whether they should call down fire from heaven on a village in Samaria that had not provided hospitality to the disciples (Lk. 9.54-55). Jesus' response is to rebuke the disciples for seeking judgment for those who reject them.
For the Christian person, the bottom line in this sort of discussion, however trite it may sound, is--- Would Jesus have suggested that the devastation that hit the gulf coast was a judgment of God? Or, would he perhaps have said of those cities what he says elsewhere about Sodom and Gomorrah, Korazin and Bethsaida--- that divine judgment of such places will not arrive until the Day of Judgment (Lk. 10.13-15). Judgment of that sort awaits the eschatological conclusion of history. Such texts ought at the very least to make us reticent to make snap judgments on why devastation fell on the Gulf Coast.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Cracks in the Wall
CRACKS IN THE WALL
Cracks in the wall,
There by design,
Prayers on plain paper
One of them mine
Rabbis are chanting,
Torah held high,
Sunlight is fading,
In the blue sky.
Guards are watching,
Passing the time,
Nodding acquaintance
With the sublime.
Herod’s temple,
All that remains
Limestone platform,
Withstands the strain,
Mosque’s gold dome
Shines in the light,
Whose God is honored
By what’s in sight?
Prayers of the righteous
Meant to be heard,
But the papers are silent,
Don’t speak a word.
“We want messiah”
Yeshiva boy cries,
The irony is thick,
And darkens the skies
Christians with kepas
Stand by the shrine,
Praying to Jesus,
As someone divine.
The wailing wall,
Heard Jesus’ lament
That he would have gathered,
If Zion would repent.
Cracks in the wall,
Filled up with our prayers,
Perhaps it is this,
Which keeps God right there
Perhaps when Messiah
Comes (once again),
Perhaps then the Spirit
Will descend through the air,
Perhaps then true monotheists
Will kneel at God’s feet,
Be filled with his Spirit,
The Father’s Son greet.
True children of Abram
Meet at the wall
And confess Trinity,
The One for us all.
Is this a dream-- we three could be one?
Just as God is,
Whose plan is not done.
“Something there is
That doesn’t like a wall”
But this one unites
The One with us all.
9/11/05
BW3
Cracks in the wall,
There by design,
Prayers on plain paper
One of them mine
Rabbis are chanting,
Torah held high,
Sunlight is fading,
In the blue sky.
Guards are watching,
Passing the time,
Nodding acquaintance
With the sublime.
Herod’s temple,
All that remains
Limestone platform,
Withstands the strain,
Mosque’s gold dome
Shines in the light,
Whose God is honored
By what’s in sight?
Prayers of the righteous
Meant to be heard,
But the papers are silent,
Don’t speak a word.
“We want messiah”
Yeshiva boy cries,
The irony is thick,
And darkens the skies
Christians with kepas
Stand by the shrine,
Praying to Jesus,
As someone divine.
The wailing wall,
Heard Jesus’ lament
That he would have gathered,
If Zion would repent.
Cracks in the wall,
Filled up with our prayers,
Perhaps it is this,
Which keeps God right there
Perhaps when Messiah
Comes (once again),
Perhaps then the Spirit
Will descend through the air,
Perhaps then true monotheists
Will kneel at God’s feet,
Be filled with his Spirit,
The Father’s Son greet.
True children of Abram
Meet at the wall
And confess Trinity,
The One for us all.
Is this a dream-- we three could be one?
Just as God is,
Whose plan is not done.
“Something there is
That doesn’t like a wall”
But this one unites
The One with us all.
9/11/05
BW3
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
"But the Lord was not in the wind....."
What shall we say as Christians about the recent devastation in New Orleans, Biloxi, Gulport, Mobile, Hattisburg and various other cities? Shall we just chalk it up to 'mother nature' gone haywire? Shall we say, with the insurance companies it was "an act of God"? If we see it as an act of God, should we see it as some kind of judgment on 'sin city'--- aka Nawlins? But if we take that tact then we are hard pressed to explain why the destruction was indescriminant, affecting the good, the bad, and the wicked. Why in the world did it destroy so many homes of seemingly undeserving persons, and why in the world were churches destroyed, even in one case by a floating casino coming in and leveling things in its path? Clearly enough pat or glib answers are no answers at all, and in any case offer cold comfort to the suffering who want a solution to their current problems far more than an answer to their questions.
Without doubting that God can sometimes use the fury of his creation to judge wicked persons, it is a precarious theology that sees the wrath of God in every major instance of the fury of nature, especially when we are talking about an indescrimant fury like hurricane Katrina. We might do better to blame ourselves for global warming, because it is human beings who have messed up the ozone, which in turn raises the temperature of the ocean, and melts the polar caps, and engenders many more hurricanes, even before hurricane season, in the Atlantic Ocean and elsewhere. It is humankind that has despoiled our environment, not God. And in any case, the Bible has something else to say about such things, whether we are talking about natural disasters, or the loss of life due to human accidents, or birth defects or human beings being malicious. Consider the following:
1) 1 Kngs. 19.11-13-- On the surface of things it may seem that the destruction that Elijah witnesses is directly intended by God since it is God who is passing by according to vs. 11, but then the text says "then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart...but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind there as an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake a conflagration, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper/light breeze/ or some render it still small voice." At the very least, this text tells us that God's will cannot be determined just by observing natural phenomena. But the text even says that God was not "in" these phenomena, which is saying more than just his will cannot be discerned in such events. It suggests that while nature reacts when its Maker comes down in theophany, God is not engendering these things in such a fashion that we could call them intelligible acts of God.
2) When Jesus is asked in Jn. 9 if the man born blind is that way because either he or his parents sinned the answer is no, but that God will use this malady to reveal his grace and glory. In other words, one cannot always correlate sickness or physical deformity and sin. Sometimes the most robust sinners are also the ones most robustly healthy. Sometimes great saints like Blaise Pascal die early deaths due to the ravages of a deformed and sickly body. There is no infallible spiritual logic to be deduced by analyzing who is sick or handicapped and who is not.
3) When Jesus is asked about a human tragedy or disaster, in this case the falling down of the tower of Siloam on unsuspecting and undeserving victims (Lk. 13.4-5), and whether the victims were worse sinners than others, his answer is a flat NO! In fact he had just said in Lk. 13.1-2 that the Galileans who were victims of deliberate human maliciousness of Pilate could not be said to be 'getting what they deserve', for Jesus insists they were not worse sinners than all the others in Galilee. In short there is no one-to-one correlation that can be drawn between sickness, natural disaster, human accident, human maliciousness on the one hand and sin on the other. And it is repeatedly said in the Bible that God judges sin.
What then should we say to those who are suffering from hurricane Katrina, or any of the other things that plague us quite unexpectedly? I would suggest that we be wise enough not to make snap judgments and glib pronouncements. Sometimes, but only sometimes, it is clear that human beings get themselves in a mess and are allowed to experience the natural consequences of their actions. Paul in Rom. 1 tells us that 'God's giving up the notorious sinners to their own wicked choices and the consequences of their actions' is indeed a form of the wrath of God against unrighteousness (see particularly Rom. 1.18-34, which even speaks of experiencing in one's own body the penalty for sexual immorality). But most of life's tragedy do not fall into this category, and hurricane Katrina certainly does not. Most events are a bit less transparent than that when it comes to connections between sin and judgment or between disasters and the Judge of all human beings.
At the end of the day we would probably do better to follow the wisdom of Korrie ten Boom. When asked by a Jewish violinist who had had her fingers smashed in the death camp called Ravensbruck "How can you believe in a God of love who would allow this to happen to me?" Corrie reflected and told the woman she did not know why that hideous thing had happened to her. But then she said "But what I do know is that no pit is so deep, that God's love is not deeper still."
Our faith in a good God is not based on what we do not understand about life, much less in our ability to make logical sense of it all. Our faith is based on grace moments that do indeed reveal God's character, and perhaps most of all we know that God can turn the worst disaster or tragedy into a triumph-- look at the cross and remember "God works all things together for the good, for those who love Him" (Rom. 8).
Without doubting that God can sometimes use the fury of his creation to judge wicked persons, it is a precarious theology that sees the wrath of God in every major instance of the fury of nature, especially when we are talking about an indescrimant fury like hurricane Katrina. We might do better to blame ourselves for global warming, because it is human beings who have messed up the ozone, which in turn raises the temperature of the ocean, and melts the polar caps, and engenders many more hurricanes, even before hurricane season, in the Atlantic Ocean and elsewhere. It is humankind that has despoiled our environment, not God. And in any case, the Bible has something else to say about such things, whether we are talking about natural disasters, or the loss of life due to human accidents, or birth defects or human beings being malicious. Consider the following:
1) 1 Kngs. 19.11-13-- On the surface of things it may seem that the destruction that Elijah witnesses is directly intended by God since it is God who is passing by according to vs. 11, but then the text says "then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart...but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind there as an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake a conflagration, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper/light breeze/ or some render it still small voice." At the very least, this text tells us that God's will cannot be determined just by observing natural phenomena. But the text even says that God was not "in" these phenomena, which is saying more than just his will cannot be discerned in such events. It suggests that while nature reacts when its Maker comes down in theophany, God is not engendering these things in such a fashion that we could call them intelligible acts of God.
2) When Jesus is asked in Jn. 9 if the man born blind is that way because either he or his parents sinned the answer is no, but that God will use this malady to reveal his grace and glory. In other words, one cannot always correlate sickness or physical deformity and sin. Sometimes the most robust sinners are also the ones most robustly healthy. Sometimes great saints like Blaise Pascal die early deaths due to the ravages of a deformed and sickly body. There is no infallible spiritual logic to be deduced by analyzing who is sick or handicapped and who is not.
3) When Jesus is asked about a human tragedy or disaster, in this case the falling down of the tower of Siloam on unsuspecting and undeserving victims (Lk. 13.4-5), and whether the victims were worse sinners than others, his answer is a flat NO! In fact he had just said in Lk. 13.1-2 that the Galileans who were victims of deliberate human maliciousness of Pilate could not be said to be 'getting what they deserve', for Jesus insists they were not worse sinners than all the others in Galilee. In short there is no one-to-one correlation that can be drawn between sickness, natural disaster, human accident, human maliciousness on the one hand and sin on the other. And it is repeatedly said in the Bible that God judges sin.
What then should we say to those who are suffering from hurricane Katrina, or any of the other things that plague us quite unexpectedly? I would suggest that we be wise enough not to make snap judgments and glib pronouncements. Sometimes, but only sometimes, it is clear that human beings get themselves in a mess and are allowed to experience the natural consequences of their actions. Paul in Rom. 1 tells us that 'God's giving up the notorious sinners to their own wicked choices and the consequences of their actions' is indeed a form of the wrath of God against unrighteousness (see particularly Rom. 1.18-34, which even speaks of experiencing in one's own body the penalty for sexual immorality). But most of life's tragedy do not fall into this category, and hurricane Katrina certainly does not. Most events are a bit less transparent than that when it comes to connections between sin and judgment or between disasters and the Judge of all human beings.
At the end of the day we would probably do better to follow the wisdom of Korrie ten Boom. When asked by a Jewish violinist who had had her fingers smashed in the death camp called Ravensbruck "How can you believe in a God of love who would allow this to happen to me?" Corrie reflected and told the woman she did not know why that hideous thing had happened to her. But then she said "But what I do know is that no pit is so deep, that God's love is not deeper still."
Our faith in a good God is not based on what we do not understand about life, much less in our ability to make logical sense of it all. Our faith is based on grace moments that do indeed reveal God's character, and perhaps most of all we know that God can turn the worst disaster or tragedy into a triumph-- look at the cross and remember "God works all things together for the good, for those who love Him" (Rom. 8).
Monday, August 29, 2005
Godcasting by Podcasting
One of the more notable and growing phenomena in our age of religious broadcasting is connected to the growing popularity of the 'Ipod' and similar devices. It is now possible to download sermons, lectures, musicales from church onto your Ipod and listen while you work, jog, play, or drive. Some services now have up to 10,000 subscribers. Not surprisingly, Evangelical Christians have been some of the first to take advantage of this new avenue to spread the Good News. This morning the N.Y. Times has an article about the phenomenon which is well worth absorbing and contemplating. You will find the link here--http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/29/technology/29godcast.html?th=&adxnnl=1&emc=th&adxnnlx=1125315225-/loM1cbBJQDUy3mY/er1mA.
While there are many positive aspects to this new way of communicating, there are of course draw backs. For one thing there is a big difference between listening to something and participating in it. Not for nothing does Jesus say "whereever two or more are gathered, there I am also" or the author of Hebrews urges "do not neglect the coming together in fellowship". There is an essential communal dimension to worship and fellowship that is largely lost when it is filtered through various sorts of media. While the difference is not as drastic as the difference between listening to a football game on the radio and actually playing in the game, it is close. What God wants is worshippers, not mere observers or those who overhear what is going on, and worship like fellowship is a group phenomenon. So we need to realize from the outset that these sorts of avenues of communication should be seen as suppliments not substitutes for direct Christian experience.
And while we are on that point, there is another one. If we keep turn public experiences into merely private ones we are encouraging voyeuristic Christianity. Our culture already too strongly associates what is profoundly personal with what is private. It will then seem natural to many to choose to experience worship 'privately'. A moments thought will show these two things, the personal and the private, are very different matters.
For example, while we can talk about a 'right to privacy' we cannot talk about 'a right to be personal'. There is no such right to be personal, it is rather a privilege and requires an interpersonal compact of sorts, an actual relationship. Christian experience is often profoundly personal, and rightly so, but it was never meant to be a purely private phenomenon kept to yourself, not least because we are supposed to share the Good News. Furthermore, as the cliche goes, the only way to keep God's love in your life is to give it away. In other words, there is an inherently social and intra-personal dimension to the Christian faith, for which infinite downloads are no substitute. Indeed a real worship or fellowship experience is infinitely better.
I say all of this because if we are cognizant of the cultural trends, we will realize that we are going to have to do even more to encourage people to come together and have normal interaction, normal worship experiences, normal relationships not filtered through one or another sort of media that turns a public phenomenon into a private experience. The key word in this discussion should be encounter. You can have many private experiences that involve only you and some sort of impersonal stimulus, but you cannot have a 'private' encounter. An encounter involves two or more persons, and whether with other humans or an encounter with God it requires something direct, unfiltered. It requires in the end that we go 'public', even if it happens initially in the privacy of our own homes. To put it another way, it requires a commitment, an opening up of the self to the other, a willingness to be vulnerable and submit to contact, to scrutiny, even to the evaluation and critique of another. A real relationship, rather than being just an observer or consumer, requires this of us.
In the book of Hebrews, as it reaches its peroration in Heb. 12.21-29 the author explains that the goal of the human life is a close encounter of the first kind with God and with God's people. He envisions it as being like being present at Mt. Sinai and being present with thousands of joyful angels and saints of days gone by in assembly and being directly in the presence of Jesus. In short, he says the goal of human experience is to be present at the final theophany. We are warned that there will be 'a whole lot of shaking going on' so that there will be the removal of things which get in the way of encounter, things that can be shaken-- "that is created things, so that what cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us worship God acceptably with reverence and awe for our 'God is a consuming fire." Instead of being consumers, we are called to be consumed by direct contact with that all consuming fire--- God. May it be so for us, and our children, and our children's children.
While there are many positive aspects to this new way of communicating, there are of course draw backs. For one thing there is a big difference between listening to something and participating in it. Not for nothing does Jesus say "whereever two or more are gathered, there I am also" or the author of Hebrews urges "do not neglect the coming together in fellowship". There is an essential communal dimension to worship and fellowship that is largely lost when it is filtered through various sorts of media. While the difference is not as drastic as the difference between listening to a football game on the radio and actually playing in the game, it is close. What God wants is worshippers, not mere observers or those who overhear what is going on, and worship like fellowship is a group phenomenon. So we need to realize from the outset that these sorts of avenues of communication should be seen as suppliments not substitutes for direct Christian experience.
And while we are on that point, there is another one. If we keep turn public experiences into merely private ones we are encouraging voyeuristic Christianity. Our culture already too strongly associates what is profoundly personal with what is private. It will then seem natural to many to choose to experience worship 'privately'. A moments thought will show these two things, the personal and the private, are very different matters.
For example, while we can talk about a 'right to privacy' we cannot talk about 'a right to be personal'. There is no such right to be personal, it is rather a privilege and requires an interpersonal compact of sorts, an actual relationship. Christian experience is often profoundly personal, and rightly so, but it was never meant to be a purely private phenomenon kept to yourself, not least because we are supposed to share the Good News. Furthermore, as the cliche goes, the only way to keep God's love in your life is to give it away. In other words, there is an inherently social and intra-personal dimension to the Christian faith, for which infinite downloads are no substitute. Indeed a real worship or fellowship experience is infinitely better.
I say all of this because if we are cognizant of the cultural trends, we will realize that we are going to have to do even more to encourage people to come together and have normal interaction, normal worship experiences, normal relationships not filtered through one or another sort of media that turns a public phenomenon into a private experience. The key word in this discussion should be encounter. You can have many private experiences that involve only you and some sort of impersonal stimulus, but you cannot have a 'private' encounter. An encounter involves two or more persons, and whether with other humans or an encounter with God it requires something direct, unfiltered. It requires in the end that we go 'public', even if it happens initially in the privacy of our own homes. To put it another way, it requires a commitment, an opening up of the self to the other, a willingness to be vulnerable and submit to contact, to scrutiny, even to the evaluation and critique of another. A real relationship, rather than being just an observer or consumer, requires this of us.
In the book of Hebrews, as it reaches its peroration in Heb. 12.21-29 the author explains that the goal of the human life is a close encounter of the first kind with God and with God's people. He envisions it as being like being present at Mt. Sinai and being present with thousands of joyful angels and saints of days gone by in assembly and being directly in the presence of Jesus. In short, he says the goal of human experience is to be present at the final theophany. We are warned that there will be 'a whole lot of shaking going on' so that there will be the removal of things which get in the way of encounter, things that can be shaken-- "that is created things, so that what cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us worship God acceptably with reverence and awe for our 'God is a consuming fire." Instead of being consumers, we are called to be consumed by direct contact with that all consuming fire--- God. May it be so for us, and our children, and our children's children.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Toasting the Pope
I have received the following link from some of my more playful Catholic and Protestant friends. I can only say--- "Prost".
http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/08/this_is_just_wr.html
http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/08/this_is_just_wr.html
Sunday, August 21, 2005
March of the Tuxedos
It is indeed hard to believe but in the midst of all the sleaze and tease movies that are part of the regular junk food called summer movies there is a National Geographic documentary which is drawing large audiences this summer--- March of the Penguins. Narrated by Morgan Freeman and filmed by a French crew who obviously had more courage than sense staying in Antartica for months at a time, even in -80F weather, this remarkable movie makes a rather remarkable if indirect argument for 'intelligent design' of God's creation and creatures. It is amazing that we have persons in our culture who can look at skyscrapers and have no trouble concluding that it must have been made by an intelligent being, but look at far more complexly designed things like penguins or humans and come to the conclusion that their existence and behavior patterns are the result of random chance. Go figure.
This movie is exquisitely filmed and seeks to chronicle a full year in the life cycle of a penguin. As it turns out the film is all about love--- or at least about the urge to procreate and prolong the species even in a brutal environment. Had Darwin visited Antartica where it is never, or almost never above 0 degrees, it would have given new meaning to his phrase survival of the fittest.
Emperor penguins are remarkable creatures who walk, waddle, and glide on their bellies for over 70 miles just to mate, and then another seventy miles to eat, and then back again to feed their young, and then a respite for the summer months when they swim and eat to their hearts' content. Turns out they live on an academic year schedule, and though they are sea creatures they spend most of their year walking to and from the breeding ground. Furthermore they go some 3-4 months at a time without eating in the winter time, but they also do not hibernate. Bears have got nothing on these creatures.
In addition to all this they are monogamous (on a year by year basis) and seem capable of showing considerable affection, and emotion towards their mates or young. The movie vividly portrays the love and sacrifice displayed by these creatures in order that their offspring may survive and thrive. You don't have to be a nature freak or a tree hugger to enjoy and even be moved by this movie.
When you witness the toughness and adaptability of these creatures it reminds one of just how fragile human beings are when it comes to their physical form and its vulnerabilities. We couldn't last five hours under the conditions these creatures live through day in and day out, without all kinds of extra clothes and support systems. We are by no means the physically fittest creatures, and yet we have survived. It is worth pondering why.
William Faulkner when he won the Nobel Prize for literature once affirmed: "I believe that humankind will not merely survive, but will in fact prevail." But why should this be so, and why should we have this sort of faith in humankind, if we are not created in God's image and God has not been watching over us and helping us survive even our own worst mistakes and follies considering how vulnerable we are compared for example to far more adapatible and rugged critters--- like for example alligators, or even cockroaches?
Perhaps above all else, this movie reminds us that all creatures great and small face many of the same basic challenges on our planet, the challenge to find food, to live, to procreate, to love, to survive, to sacrifice for others that we care about or are related to. We are all part of the same life cycle and eco-system, and there are things we can learn from watching Emperor penguins that could help us "live long and prosper".
And if it is indeed true that humans were set on this earth to tend this garden and use it without abusing it, then there is certainly one lesson that stands out so clearly from a movie like this--- all other creatures other than humans kill almost solely for food and yes occasionally as retaliation for being attacked or harmed. They do not kill for sport, they do not kill for fun, and most strikingly they do not under any normal circumstances kill their own species. They do not foul their own nests.
Perhaps after all, humans are not in all ways the most intelligent creatures on earth. Perhaps the sage knew what he was saying when he urged us to observe the lesser creatures and learn-- "four things on earth are small, and yet they are extremely wise---ants are creatures of little strength, yet they store up their food in the summer; rock badgers are creatures of little power and yet they make their homes in the safety of rocky crags; locusts hasve no kings, yet they advance together in ranks; as lizard can be caught with the hand, yet it is found in king's palaces." (Prov. 30.24-28).
Go see this movie, and take your children, and so "teach your children well".
This movie is exquisitely filmed and seeks to chronicle a full year in the life cycle of a penguin. As it turns out the film is all about love--- or at least about the urge to procreate and prolong the species even in a brutal environment. Had Darwin visited Antartica where it is never, or almost never above 0 degrees, it would have given new meaning to his phrase survival of the fittest.
Emperor penguins are remarkable creatures who walk, waddle, and glide on their bellies for over 70 miles just to mate, and then another seventy miles to eat, and then back again to feed their young, and then a respite for the summer months when they swim and eat to their hearts' content. Turns out they live on an academic year schedule, and though they are sea creatures they spend most of their year walking to and from the breeding ground. Furthermore they go some 3-4 months at a time without eating in the winter time, but they also do not hibernate. Bears have got nothing on these creatures.
In addition to all this they are monogamous (on a year by year basis) and seem capable of showing considerable affection, and emotion towards their mates or young. The movie vividly portrays the love and sacrifice displayed by these creatures in order that their offspring may survive and thrive. You don't have to be a nature freak or a tree hugger to enjoy and even be moved by this movie.
When you witness the toughness and adaptability of these creatures it reminds one of just how fragile human beings are when it comes to their physical form and its vulnerabilities. We couldn't last five hours under the conditions these creatures live through day in and day out, without all kinds of extra clothes and support systems. We are by no means the physically fittest creatures, and yet we have survived. It is worth pondering why.
William Faulkner when he won the Nobel Prize for literature once affirmed: "I believe that humankind will not merely survive, but will in fact prevail." But why should this be so, and why should we have this sort of faith in humankind, if we are not created in God's image and God has not been watching over us and helping us survive even our own worst mistakes and follies considering how vulnerable we are compared for example to far more adapatible and rugged critters--- like for example alligators, or even cockroaches?
Perhaps above all else, this movie reminds us that all creatures great and small face many of the same basic challenges on our planet, the challenge to find food, to live, to procreate, to love, to survive, to sacrifice for others that we care about or are related to. We are all part of the same life cycle and eco-system, and there are things we can learn from watching Emperor penguins that could help us "live long and prosper".
And if it is indeed true that humans were set on this earth to tend this garden and use it without abusing it, then there is certainly one lesson that stands out so clearly from a movie like this--- all other creatures other than humans kill almost solely for food and yes occasionally as retaliation for being attacked or harmed. They do not kill for sport, they do not kill for fun, and most strikingly they do not under any normal circumstances kill their own species. They do not foul their own nests.
Perhaps after all, humans are not in all ways the most intelligent creatures on earth. Perhaps the sage knew what he was saying when he urged us to observe the lesser creatures and learn-- "four things on earth are small, and yet they are extremely wise---ants are creatures of little strength, yet they store up their food in the summer; rock badgers are creatures of little power and yet they make their homes in the safety of rocky crags; locusts hasve no kings, yet they advance together in ranks; as lizard can be caught with the hand, yet it is found in king's palaces." (Prov. 30.24-28).
Go see this movie, and take your children, and so "teach your children well".
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Paul--- Right on the Money
One of the most prevalent topics in the Pastorals Epistles is money and its accumulation. Paul is especially concerned with how Christian leaders handle money and sees it as a litmus test of their character.
Let us begin with 1 Tim.3.3,8 and Titus 1.7 which should be contrasted with texts like Titus 1.11, and it is good to throw in a text like 1 Tim. 5.18 for good measure. There is a deliberate contrast set up between the character of a good Christian leader and that of the false teachers who are indeed in it for the money. It seems clear enough that avarice or greed is seen as a significant sin, and one that Christian leaders especially should avoid.
At the same time, Paul believes leaders ought to be paid for their work of ministry, which should remove them from the temptation to pursue ministerial tasks primarily if not solely for the motivation of making a living, like so many other ancient philosophers or teachers for hire of that age.
This brings us to the rhetorical contrast or sunkrisis set up in 1 Tim.6.3-10 which should be studied as a whole unit, without extracting 1 Tim. 6.10 from the mix, especially since it is consistently one of the most misquoted verses in the NT. The issue here is not merely money, but rather the ‘love of money’ which is seen as a primary cause of apostasy or wandering from the faith as 6.10b indicates.
Paul’s concern here is, as 1 Tim. 6.5b shows with the use of apparent godliness for the sake of financial gain. By contrast Paul says godliness with contentment when it comes to possessions and the provisions of life, is in itself great gain, indeed a much greater gain than having wealth. Notice how in vs. 9 the focus is on the desire to ‘get rich’, which is said to lead people to become prey to various sorts of temptations and unhealthy desires.
The maxim cited in 1 Tim. 6.10 is meant to help climax the argument, stressing that the love of money is indeed a root of all sorts of evils. Money itself is not said to be evil, but the desire to have it in abundance, that acquisitive desire, is seen as a very serious evil that leads to others in its train. Christians are those who should be content with having the basic necessities of life taken care of, without trying to secure the future for themselves, and so missing out on the opportunity to trust God for the future.
Here of course is a message that will give many Mallox moments to many rich Christians. It stands as an obvious antithesis to much of what one hears from financial planners, even Christian ones, about storing things up in barns, and the like, to use a phrase of Jesus. It was Jesus of course who said that one cannot serve two masters—God and money. This is seen by Paul as almost a truism when it comes to Christian leaders. One’s ultimate love and trust must be placed in God, and that in turn should set at rest the acquisitive instinct that is in part an extension of the survival instinct, the attempt to secure one’s life by one’s own efforts.
From Paul’s vantage point one should face the future as follows: 1) content to live a simple or simplified Christian lifestyle; 2) letting one’s impulses and desires be ruled and overruled by godliness and godly priorities; 3) being generous with others as part of Christian hospitality, and frugal with one’s self; 4) engaging in faith rather than fear based practices and ministry and 5) scrutinizing especially closely one’s motivations for undertaking this or that Christian task—“not using godliness as a mean of financial gain”, whilst the church which supports the minister should 6) recognize that they have an obligation to support the minister adequately indeed even generously so he or she can focus on the tasks of ministry instead of on making a living. And 7) the issue then for Paul is in part about how one makes one’s money (hence the focus on dishonest gain when talking about church leaders), and just as important what one does with what one has--- a true test of character. How a person spends their money tells us a lot about that person, and all the more so if that person is a Christian leader.
It was John Wesley, having meditated on Jesus’ and Paul’s statements about money who stressed to his converts that ‘your luxuries should come after meeting other person’s necessities’. He says that while a Christian should make all they can by honest means and save all they can, they should also give all they can as the way to complete the way a Christian handles money. He stated that if you only make and save all you can without giving all you can ‘you may be a living person, but you are a dead Christian’. These are convicting words, and words we ought to hear more from Christian pulpits in the North America, especially in contexts where life styles of conspicuous consumption characterize much of the congregation.
Let us begin with 1 Tim.3.3,8 and Titus 1.7 which should be contrasted with texts like Titus 1.11, and it is good to throw in a text like 1 Tim. 5.18 for good measure. There is a deliberate contrast set up between the character of a good Christian leader and that of the false teachers who are indeed in it for the money. It seems clear enough that avarice or greed is seen as a significant sin, and one that Christian leaders especially should avoid.
At the same time, Paul believes leaders ought to be paid for their work of ministry, which should remove them from the temptation to pursue ministerial tasks primarily if not solely for the motivation of making a living, like so many other ancient philosophers or teachers for hire of that age.
This brings us to the rhetorical contrast or sunkrisis set up in 1 Tim.6.3-10 which should be studied as a whole unit, without extracting 1 Tim. 6.10 from the mix, especially since it is consistently one of the most misquoted verses in the NT. The issue here is not merely money, but rather the ‘love of money’ which is seen as a primary cause of apostasy or wandering from the faith as 6.10b indicates.
Paul’s concern here is, as 1 Tim. 6.5b shows with the use of apparent godliness for the sake of financial gain. By contrast Paul says godliness with contentment when it comes to possessions and the provisions of life, is in itself great gain, indeed a much greater gain than having wealth. Notice how in vs. 9 the focus is on the desire to ‘get rich’, which is said to lead people to become prey to various sorts of temptations and unhealthy desires.
The maxim cited in 1 Tim. 6.10 is meant to help climax the argument, stressing that the love of money is indeed a root of all sorts of evils. Money itself is not said to be evil, but the desire to have it in abundance, that acquisitive desire, is seen as a very serious evil that leads to others in its train. Christians are those who should be content with having the basic necessities of life taken care of, without trying to secure the future for themselves, and so missing out on the opportunity to trust God for the future.
Here of course is a message that will give many Mallox moments to many rich Christians. It stands as an obvious antithesis to much of what one hears from financial planners, even Christian ones, about storing things up in barns, and the like, to use a phrase of Jesus. It was Jesus of course who said that one cannot serve two masters—God and money. This is seen by Paul as almost a truism when it comes to Christian leaders. One’s ultimate love and trust must be placed in God, and that in turn should set at rest the acquisitive instinct that is in part an extension of the survival instinct, the attempt to secure one’s life by one’s own efforts.
From Paul’s vantage point one should face the future as follows: 1) content to live a simple or simplified Christian lifestyle; 2) letting one’s impulses and desires be ruled and overruled by godliness and godly priorities; 3) being generous with others as part of Christian hospitality, and frugal with one’s self; 4) engaging in faith rather than fear based practices and ministry and 5) scrutinizing especially closely one’s motivations for undertaking this or that Christian task—“not using godliness as a mean of financial gain”, whilst the church which supports the minister should 6) recognize that they have an obligation to support the minister adequately indeed even generously so he or she can focus on the tasks of ministry instead of on making a living. And 7) the issue then for Paul is in part about how one makes one’s money (hence the focus on dishonest gain when talking about church leaders), and just as important what one does with what one has--- a true test of character. How a person spends their money tells us a lot about that person, and all the more so if that person is a Christian leader.
It was John Wesley, having meditated on Jesus’ and Paul’s statements about money who stressed to his converts that ‘your luxuries should come after meeting other person’s necessities’. He says that while a Christian should make all they can by honest means and save all they can, they should also give all they can as the way to complete the way a Christian handles money. He stated that if you only make and save all you can without giving all you can ‘you may be a living person, but you are a dead Christian’. These are convicting words, and words we ought to hear more from Christian pulpits in the North America, especially in contexts where life styles of conspicuous consumption characterize much of the congregation.
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Money and the Church
A while back my friend Dr. Ken Carter, pastor of Providence UMC in Charlotte sent me these staggering statistics. Here they are for your pondering.
Fact # 1: In 1916, Protestants were giving 2.9% of their incomes to their churches. In 1933, in the midst of the Great Depression, it was 3.2%. In 1955 just after affluence began spreading through our culture, it was still 3.2%. By 2002, when Americans were over 480% richer, after taxes and inflation, than in the Great Depression, Protestants were giving 2.6% of their incomes to their churches. Source: www.emptytomb.org.
Fact # 2: If Americans who identify with the historically Christian church increased their giving to an average of 10% of income, there could be an additional $86 billion dollars available for overseas missions each year. One source estimates that $70-$80 billion would impact the worst of world poverty and $5 billion could end most of the 11 million under-5, global, annual child deaths. Also, $7 billion would be sufficient for global primary education for all children. There could also be $30.9 billion more a year for domestic outreach. Source: www.emptytomb.org
Fact # 3: Americans spend more money on gambling than groceries. Source: Crown Ministries.
Fact #4 : One in six children in the U.S. live in poverty, compared to one in twelve in Great Britain and one in twenty in Germany. Source: Jim Wallis, Sojourners.
Fact# 5: Americans spend, as a group, $2. 5 billion per year for world missions, $2. 5 billion per year for chewing gum,$ 8 billion per year for movies, $22 billion per year for hunting, $34 million per year for state lotteries. Source: John and Sylvia Ronsvalle, Behind the Stained Glass Window.
Fact #6: Eight of ten families spend more than they make. Source: Family Business Centre, Inc.
Fact #7: As a national average, one third to one half of a church’s membership supports the congregation financially. Source: Christian Missionary Alliance.
Fact # 1: In 1916, Protestants were giving 2.9% of their incomes to their churches. In 1933, in the midst of the Great Depression, it was 3.2%. In 1955 just after affluence began spreading through our culture, it was still 3.2%. By 2002, when Americans were over 480% richer, after taxes and inflation, than in the Great Depression, Protestants were giving 2.6% of their incomes to their churches. Source: www.emptytomb.org.
Fact # 2: If Americans who identify with the historically Christian church increased their giving to an average of 10% of income, there could be an additional $86 billion dollars available for overseas missions each year. One source estimates that $70-$80 billion would impact the worst of world poverty and $5 billion could end most of the 11 million under-5, global, annual child deaths. Also, $7 billion would be sufficient for global primary education for all children. There could also be $30.9 billion more a year for domestic outreach. Source: www.emptytomb.org
Fact # 3: Americans spend more money on gambling than groceries. Source: Crown Ministries.
Fact #4 : One in six children in the U.S. live in poverty, compared to one in twelve in Great Britain and one in twenty in Germany. Source: Jim Wallis, Sojourners.
Fact# 5: Americans spend, as a group, $2. 5 billion per year for world missions, $2. 5 billion per year for chewing gum,$ 8 billion per year for movies, $22 billion per year for hunting, $34 million per year for state lotteries. Source: John and Sylvia Ronsvalle, Behind the Stained Glass Window.
Fact #6: Eight of ten families spend more than they make. Source: Family Business Centre, Inc.
Fact #7: As a national average, one third to one half of a church’s membership supports the congregation financially. Source: Christian Missionary Alliance.
The Virtue of Losing
Whether we like it or not, most of the valuable lessons we learn in life come from learning from our mistakes, including from the times we lose something we have highly valued. If we are forever protected from falling, we never learn how to stand on our own two feet. I was reminded of this truth while watching the semi-final rounds of the Final Four basketball a while back. There was Coach K of the Blue Devils at the end of the game acting like a petulant child screaming at the refs—“you killed us, you killed us, you killed us.” Winning had so become the all consuming passion of the moment that the Coach lost it. He had forgotten how heroically his senior point guard Chris Duhon had played in the last several games of the tournament. He had forgotten how it was his decision to leave his premiere low post players Williams and then Randolph in the game while Connecticut’s Coach Calhoun had benched the best player in the game Emeka Okafor for most of the game due to fouls and brought him in the for crucial stretch run. Coach K had overlooked that it was his players, not the referees who took the final shots that went awry, and when J.J. Reddick barreled into the lane like a bowling ball bouncing off of ten pens and was stripped of the ball, he blamed the refs for not calling the foul. Of course he was silent when the other team also did not get such calls in the last five minutes of the game. The Duke basketball program is supposed to beone of the true Cadillac programs in the country. But it too all too often seems to operate on the same principle as so many other schools, the Lombardi principle-- “winning is not everything, it is the only thing”. I say this with shame, since I love Duke University and have both attended the school and have taught there as well. You don’t hear many coaches anymore who say “its not whether you win or lose, its how you play the game”. No the mantra today is, “just win baby”. We are the poorer for this cultural shift.
Frankly, as much as I love watching sports, this ruthless drive in America for winning which runs over principles and good persons and even the rules of the game and grinds them into the dust has made me ashamed of my own passion for sports. When winning can be bought in professional sports, ala the Yankees who every year stack the deck in their favor, then its not worth very much. When home run records can be obtained through the use of steroids, then they are not worth very much. Its no different than when a politician buys an election.
But what is even more sickening is to watch the ‘professionalization’ of amateur athletics. I get physically sick when I think of college alumni and booster clubs pressuring their institutions to hire or fire this or that coach, or to recruit this or that athlete no matter whether they have the academic acumen to be in college or not. I grow weary of the cheapening of an academic institution through its process of prostituting itself so it can have a winning sports team.
Let me offer a case in point from my own much loved college alma mater—UNC-Chapel Hill, the oldest state University in the country. Frankly, the way we treated Matt Doherty, unless I am missing something, was worse than shameful. When players can force the firing of a coach without even giving the man a second chance, there is no ethical integrity in that. This decision stands in stark contrast to the recent noble decision to allow those without the financial means to attend Carolina tuition free. The latter shows that it isn’t just all about the money, there are ethical principles involved. The former suggests that indeed it is all about winning and the ephemeral glory and money that comes with that. I would urge my alma mater to not be schizophrenic and be its best self even when it comes to the high pressure arena of college basketball. But now that we have won the brass ring in 2005 will the pressue to 'just win baby' be any less of Coach Williams and his team, even though they lost their top seven players to graduation or the NBA draft. I think not.
Long ago, when I was still in junior high school and was playing basketball I attended Dean Smith’s summer basketball camp. I learned the fine art of free throwing from Charlie Scott, and did wind sprints until I dropped courtesy of Eddie Fogler. But what really impressed me was how Coach Smith treated us all with respect, this same coach who had helped integrate the restaurants in Chapel Hill and who had brought Charlie Scott to our school despite a firestorm of criticism.
What impressed me most about Coach Smith was his ethical integrity and his primary commitment to what was best for the players and for the school, rather than putting winning first. What impressed me most is that Coach Smith knew that we all have a God to answer to, and therefore ethical integrity matters most of all. He knew and he taught us that there is far more glory in losing with honest hard effort than in winning by dirty play or through some chicanery involved in the recruiting process.
I long for the day when we will understand what real glory is. Real glory didn’t show up when Jim Valvano won his miraculous and wonderful national championship in 1983. Real glory showed up when he had the courage to take his message about cancer to the streets, even when he was dying and to tell us all we should never give up, and that after all---loving, and laughing and crying and caring about one’s family are far more important things than the world’s definitions of winning. Jim Valvano went out a winner in God’s eyes because of how he responded to the cancer in his life.
I long for a day where ESPN will stop glorifying the huge salaries players make and spend far more time reporting that which tends towards virtue in the games we play. I long for a day when college coaches will resign before they will knuckle under to the pressure from booster clubs and others to engage in immoral practices to lure players to their schools, and when they will not turn a blind eye to the immoral practices of their players and boosters as in the recent scandal in Colorado. I long for the day when no college player will be eligible for the pro-draft before spending at least three years in college, and so being within sight of their diploma.
I long for the day when we stop sending all the wrong messages to our impressionable children by allowing the peddling of various drugs—whether tobacco, or alcohol, or steroids or the like in the advertising associated with sports.
In this summer season with more and more revelations about steroids in baseball and the pouting of Terrell Owens about respect and money (this from a man making millions a year for playing football),I am reminded that Jesus’ definition of glory, was laying down his life for others, sacrificing so others might have life, and love and joy and much else that was good. To the world it appeared that Jesus was a big loser. After all, he died on a cross, the most humiliating and public way to be shamed in antiquity. The truth is, that self-sacrifice, and living a life of integrity have far more to do with glory than self-indulgence, self-gratification, or self-glorification.
Since we are an entertainment obsessed culture, it would be a good thing if we did a better job of modeling real life virtues in public, particularly in our sporting events. Maybe then we would realize that fame is fleeting and is an imposter, but having a good name is far more important. Maybe then we would realize the virtue of losing is much to be preferred to the losing of virtue, which sadly is all too often what we see in sports these days. Maybe then we would realize that life has a way of humbling all of us, and losing is one of the ways God uses to deflate and defuse overweening human pride, and this frankly, in an age of hype and hyperbole, and rhetoric and bombast is a very good thing indeed.
Frankly, as much as I love watching sports, this ruthless drive in America for winning which runs over principles and good persons and even the rules of the game and grinds them into the dust has made me ashamed of my own passion for sports. When winning can be bought in professional sports, ala the Yankees who every year stack the deck in their favor, then its not worth very much. When home run records can be obtained through the use of steroids, then they are not worth very much. Its no different than when a politician buys an election.
But what is even more sickening is to watch the ‘professionalization’ of amateur athletics. I get physically sick when I think of college alumni and booster clubs pressuring their institutions to hire or fire this or that coach, or to recruit this or that athlete no matter whether they have the academic acumen to be in college or not. I grow weary of the cheapening of an academic institution through its process of prostituting itself so it can have a winning sports team.
Let me offer a case in point from my own much loved college alma mater—UNC-Chapel Hill, the oldest state University in the country. Frankly, the way we treated Matt Doherty, unless I am missing something, was worse than shameful. When players can force the firing of a coach without even giving the man a second chance, there is no ethical integrity in that. This decision stands in stark contrast to the recent noble decision to allow those without the financial means to attend Carolina tuition free. The latter shows that it isn’t just all about the money, there are ethical principles involved. The former suggests that indeed it is all about winning and the ephemeral glory and money that comes with that. I would urge my alma mater to not be schizophrenic and be its best self even when it comes to the high pressure arena of college basketball. But now that we have won the brass ring in 2005 will the pressue to 'just win baby' be any less of Coach Williams and his team, even though they lost their top seven players to graduation or the NBA draft. I think not.
Long ago, when I was still in junior high school and was playing basketball I attended Dean Smith’s summer basketball camp. I learned the fine art of free throwing from Charlie Scott, and did wind sprints until I dropped courtesy of Eddie Fogler. But what really impressed me was how Coach Smith treated us all with respect, this same coach who had helped integrate the restaurants in Chapel Hill and who had brought Charlie Scott to our school despite a firestorm of criticism.
What impressed me most about Coach Smith was his ethical integrity and his primary commitment to what was best for the players and for the school, rather than putting winning first. What impressed me most is that Coach Smith knew that we all have a God to answer to, and therefore ethical integrity matters most of all. He knew and he taught us that there is far more glory in losing with honest hard effort than in winning by dirty play or through some chicanery involved in the recruiting process.
I long for the day when we will understand what real glory is. Real glory didn’t show up when Jim Valvano won his miraculous and wonderful national championship in 1983. Real glory showed up when he had the courage to take his message about cancer to the streets, even when he was dying and to tell us all we should never give up, and that after all---loving, and laughing and crying and caring about one’s family are far more important things than the world’s definitions of winning. Jim Valvano went out a winner in God’s eyes because of how he responded to the cancer in his life.
I long for a day where ESPN will stop glorifying the huge salaries players make and spend far more time reporting that which tends towards virtue in the games we play. I long for a day when college coaches will resign before they will knuckle under to the pressure from booster clubs and others to engage in immoral practices to lure players to their schools, and when they will not turn a blind eye to the immoral practices of their players and boosters as in the recent scandal in Colorado. I long for the day when no college player will be eligible for the pro-draft before spending at least three years in college, and so being within sight of their diploma.
I long for the day when we stop sending all the wrong messages to our impressionable children by allowing the peddling of various drugs—whether tobacco, or alcohol, or steroids or the like in the advertising associated with sports.
In this summer season with more and more revelations about steroids in baseball and the pouting of Terrell Owens about respect and money (this from a man making millions a year for playing football),I am reminded that Jesus’ definition of glory, was laying down his life for others, sacrificing so others might have life, and love and joy and much else that was good. To the world it appeared that Jesus was a big loser. After all, he died on a cross, the most humiliating and public way to be shamed in antiquity. The truth is, that self-sacrifice, and living a life of integrity have far more to do with glory than self-indulgence, self-gratification, or self-glorification.
Since we are an entertainment obsessed culture, it would be a good thing if we did a better job of modeling real life virtues in public, particularly in our sporting events. Maybe then we would realize that fame is fleeting and is an imposter, but having a good name is far more important. Maybe then we would realize the virtue of losing is much to be preferred to the losing of virtue, which sadly is all too often what we see in sports these days. Maybe then we would realize that life has a way of humbling all of us, and losing is one of the ways God uses to deflate and defuse overweening human pride, and this frankly, in an age of hype and hyperbole, and rhetoric and bombast is a very good thing indeed.
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Alexander-- the Not so Great Movie
One of the great imponderables for a Biblical scholar is trying to figure out just how Hellenized Jews were during the NT era. Put another way, just how indebted were they to the legacy of Alexander, which caused even Jews to translate their sacred scriptures into Greek and adopt Greek customs and culture? And what can be said about Alexander and his legacy? These were questions I pondered as I went with hope to learn something from the film Alexander.
Directors of late have had a penchant for making more historically oriented films in the wake of the success of “Gladiator”, and the somewhat more modest success of “Troy” (not to mention the recent ABC TV summer min-series on Empire and Caesar), and so it is no surprise that someone would try their hand at Alexander the Great—a large subject which would seem to suit the large screen and multi-million dollar budgets. The results of Oliver Stone’s efforts to create a compelling if overly-lengthy epic (175 long minutes) are decidedly mixed, and frankly the reviews were mostly negative. Now that the DVD has come out in two different formats and we can watch the film in smaller doses it is a good time to ask-- What went wrong?
First there is the problem of casting. Alexander needs to be played by what in the old days would have been called ‘a man’s man’. He was a heroic figure, though he only lived into his 30s, and he decidedly was not a ‘momma’s boy’ to use another hackneyed cliché. What do we get in Stone’s film? We get someone who starts as a momma’s boy ( with snake-loving momma played rather badly by Angelia Jolie. We can be sure that Alexander’s mother was not like an ‘Italian femme tres formidable’ from a much later era), whose relationship with his lifelong friend Hephaestion is portrayed as a homosexual affair, without sufficient historical warrant.
Colin Ferrell does his best to fill out the role of the adult Alexander, but there is little warmth in the portrayal, and even less attempt to reveal the real inner character and source of vision and strength of the man. Ferrell looks the part in a stereotypical kind of blond haired blue eyed way, but he never really wins the heart or admiration of the audience. Nor, at the end of the day do we get sufficient insight into what drove the man to conquer all the way to India, or why he dreamed of creating one world with Greek culture and Greek language--- an oikiomene/ecumenical vision if there ever was one.
In his hurry to get to the battle scenes, Stone gives short shrift to the early Alexander, including Alexander’s all important relationship with his tutor Aristotle, though he does do a serviceable job of dealing with the legendary story about Alexander’s taming of Bucephalus, his incredible horse. The relationship of Alexander with his father Philip (played with drunken lout gusto by Val Kilmer no less) is shown to be troubled, which it was, but the inner workings of the relationship are portrayed as something of a rivalry, though occasionally the king was proud of his son, and his son admired some aspects of his father--- especially his skills as a warrior and his bravery. There is then both a problem with the casting and with the editing and story telling in this film. Even worse there is a problem with the film’s musical score. Vangelis, he of Chariot’s of Fire fame, has composed a syrupy synthesizer score which neither inspires nor is even remotely appropriate for this film as it is so out of character with the ancient subject and theme of the movie. It is rather like going to the opera and a vaudeville routine breaks out. Where is Hans Zimmer, who did the impressive score for Gladiator, when you need him? For a musician such as myself, this was very annoying and distracting. But there are some pluses to the film.
For those of us who have longed to see places like Alexandria with its famous lighthouse and library, or Babylon with its famous palace and hanging gardens, this film has breath-taking CG moments. The colors, the layout of the cities, the ships sailing in Alexandria’s harbor, and above all the incredible library with its thousands of scrolls are lovingly re-created. The palace in Babylon and the street scenes are equally spectacular. But alas, these moments are few and far between and not enough is made of them. Especially sad is the fact that the narrator of the film, Ptolemy of Alexandria, played wonderfully by Anthony Hopkins, gets short shrift. The movie opens with him in Alexandria, promising great things. The movie however fails to deliver thereafter. It would have been far better if Hopkins had played Aristotle to the hilt, and we had learned where Alexander really got his Greek vision from. Though I am a pacificist, I must admit that amidst the gory there are some impressive battle scenes at Gaugamela and then in India as well. But what was it about Alexander that inspired his men to go so far, when they wanted to stop in Babylon and even go home? How did these series of battles get turned into a viable Empire? The movie does not really help us to puzzle these things out. Blood and guts wins out over head and heart.
For me this was a great disappointment. Over thirty years ago I took Greek history with a master teacher Jim McCoy at Carolina. We read great books like “The Harvest of Hellenism” and Peter Green’s “Alexander the Great”. I had hoped for so much more from this movie. Some long time ago I began a poem about Alexander written for a term paper for Jim McCoy, which I have finally finished. Perhaps it will give a better glimpse of the man than this trying and uninspiring movie did.
FIRE ON ICE
Fire on ice
Ice on fire,
Unbridled ambition
Unending desire,
Golden hair
Midas Touch
I am Alexander.
Ice on fire
Fire on ice,
Gory glory
Beyond advice
One world vision
Flickering flame
I am Alexander.
Macedonian monarch
Aristotle’s ward,
The great commander
Without reward,
Without peers
Without an heir,
I am Alexander.
All the world’s glory
All the acclaim
The Greek colossus
The mythical name
Builder of Empire
Finder of fame,
I am Alexander.
Child of the gods
Destined from birth
Harvest of Hellas
Spread through the earth
Conquered conqueror
Who knows my worth?
I am Alexander.
BW3
Directors of late have had a penchant for making more historically oriented films in the wake of the success of “Gladiator”, and the somewhat more modest success of “Troy” (not to mention the recent ABC TV summer min-series on Empire and Caesar), and so it is no surprise that someone would try their hand at Alexander the Great—a large subject which would seem to suit the large screen and multi-million dollar budgets. The results of Oliver Stone’s efforts to create a compelling if overly-lengthy epic (175 long minutes) are decidedly mixed, and frankly the reviews were mostly negative. Now that the DVD has come out in two different formats and we can watch the film in smaller doses it is a good time to ask-- What went wrong?
First there is the problem of casting. Alexander needs to be played by what in the old days would have been called ‘a man’s man’. He was a heroic figure, though he only lived into his 30s, and he decidedly was not a ‘momma’s boy’ to use another hackneyed cliché. What do we get in Stone’s film? We get someone who starts as a momma’s boy ( with snake-loving momma played rather badly by Angelia Jolie. We can be sure that Alexander’s mother was not like an ‘Italian femme tres formidable’ from a much later era), whose relationship with his lifelong friend Hephaestion is portrayed as a homosexual affair, without sufficient historical warrant.
Colin Ferrell does his best to fill out the role of the adult Alexander, but there is little warmth in the portrayal, and even less attempt to reveal the real inner character and source of vision and strength of the man. Ferrell looks the part in a stereotypical kind of blond haired blue eyed way, but he never really wins the heart or admiration of the audience. Nor, at the end of the day do we get sufficient insight into what drove the man to conquer all the way to India, or why he dreamed of creating one world with Greek culture and Greek language--- an oikiomene/ecumenical vision if there ever was one.
In his hurry to get to the battle scenes, Stone gives short shrift to the early Alexander, including Alexander’s all important relationship with his tutor Aristotle, though he does do a serviceable job of dealing with the legendary story about Alexander’s taming of Bucephalus, his incredible horse. The relationship of Alexander with his father Philip (played with drunken lout gusto by Val Kilmer no less) is shown to be troubled, which it was, but the inner workings of the relationship are portrayed as something of a rivalry, though occasionally the king was proud of his son, and his son admired some aspects of his father--- especially his skills as a warrior and his bravery. There is then both a problem with the casting and with the editing and story telling in this film. Even worse there is a problem with the film’s musical score. Vangelis, he of Chariot’s of Fire fame, has composed a syrupy synthesizer score which neither inspires nor is even remotely appropriate for this film as it is so out of character with the ancient subject and theme of the movie. It is rather like going to the opera and a vaudeville routine breaks out. Where is Hans Zimmer, who did the impressive score for Gladiator, when you need him? For a musician such as myself, this was very annoying and distracting. But there are some pluses to the film.
For those of us who have longed to see places like Alexandria with its famous lighthouse and library, or Babylon with its famous palace and hanging gardens, this film has breath-taking CG moments. The colors, the layout of the cities, the ships sailing in Alexandria’s harbor, and above all the incredible library with its thousands of scrolls are lovingly re-created. The palace in Babylon and the street scenes are equally spectacular. But alas, these moments are few and far between and not enough is made of them. Especially sad is the fact that the narrator of the film, Ptolemy of Alexandria, played wonderfully by Anthony Hopkins, gets short shrift. The movie opens with him in Alexandria, promising great things. The movie however fails to deliver thereafter. It would have been far better if Hopkins had played Aristotle to the hilt, and we had learned where Alexander really got his Greek vision from. Though I am a pacificist, I must admit that amidst the gory there are some impressive battle scenes at Gaugamela and then in India as well. But what was it about Alexander that inspired his men to go so far, when they wanted to stop in Babylon and even go home? How did these series of battles get turned into a viable Empire? The movie does not really help us to puzzle these things out. Blood and guts wins out over head and heart.
For me this was a great disappointment. Over thirty years ago I took Greek history with a master teacher Jim McCoy at Carolina. We read great books like “The Harvest of Hellenism” and Peter Green’s “Alexander the Great”. I had hoped for so much more from this movie. Some long time ago I began a poem about Alexander written for a term paper for Jim McCoy, which I have finally finished. Perhaps it will give a better glimpse of the man than this trying and uninspiring movie did.
FIRE ON ICE
Fire on ice
Ice on fire,
Unbridled ambition
Unending desire,
Golden hair
Midas Touch
I am Alexander.
Ice on fire
Fire on ice,
Gory glory
Beyond advice
One world vision
Flickering flame
I am Alexander.
Macedonian monarch
Aristotle’s ward,
The great commander
Without reward,
Without peers
Without an heir,
I am Alexander.
All the world’s glory
All the acclaim
The Greek colossus
The mythical name
Builder of Empire
Finder of fame,
I am Alexander.
Child of the gods
Destined from birth
Harvest of Hellas
Spread through the earth
Conquered conqueror
Who knows my worth?
I am Alexander.
BW3
Monday, August 01, 2005
Inspired, but not Truthful
As I am working through 1 John, a variety of pertinent issues continue to come up, and certainly several come up from careful scrutiny in 1 Jn. 4.1-6. Our author is talking about testing the spirits, which is another way of talking about testing the source of one's own or another person's inspiration. One of the interesting features of the discussion in this text is that the author does not deny that the false teachers/prophets are inspired or guided by some spiritual source, he simply says that what they are saying isn't true and therefore they are inspired by nefarious spiritual influences. In short, inspiration is no guarantee of truth, any more than a profound religious experience is a guarantee that it comes from a good source. Apparently, it is a good rule in spiritual matters to 'consider the source'.
Our author views the spiritual world as follows: 1) there is both a Holy Spirit and a Satan both of them capable of inspiring certain thoughts and actions. It is possible our author is also thinking of demons indwelling and inspiring people, but demons are nowhere mentioned in this sermon. What is referred to is the Holy Spirit indwelling believers; 2) the human spirit picks up the signal, so to speak from its spiritual source--- whether God or the Devil; then 3) the spiritual person speaks some inspired and apparently also inspiring words.
As it turns out inspiration is not a guarantee of the content of the inspired statements being true. Thus criteria have to be applied to discern who is a true prophet and who a false one. Our author applies two interesting criteria, and here he is drawing on Deut. 13: 1) the person who makes a true confession about Jesus being the Christ or the Son of God or the Savior come in the flesh is obviously inspired by the Holy Spirit because as 1 Cor. 12.3 says, no one can make such a true confession except by the Holy Spirit; 2) the person who loves the brothers and sisters and lives a righteous and holy life is obviously someone who has the Spirit of God dwelling in him or her. In other words, there is both a test of orthodoxy and a test of orthopraxy to determine whether one is inspired by a true and godly source or not.
Of what relevance is this to us? I am tempted to say with another Biblical writer 'much in every way'. Our culture has a major problem discerning the difference between earnestness and truth, or even honesty and truth, and also between enthusiasm and truth, or 'being inspired or spiritual' and truth.
Our author warns us that inspiration, enthusiasm, earnestness, even honesty about what one believes is no guarantee of truth. You can honestly confess you believe something and be dead wrong. This is precisely why our author relies on more objective criteria-- what does this prophetic voice actually say or teach, and how does this person live. The latter is something on the order of "you shall know the tree by the fruit it bears" but also a 'true Christological confession' is crucial. There is a lot of teaching that goes on in the church today that could not pass the Beloved Disciple's Christological test, much less his sanctification test. In our author's view true love, love of God and of others, has a particular Christological shape-- it looks like the life and teachings of Jesus, and one might add the life and teachings of his eyewitnesses and apostles. It does not look much like the 'true confessions' or lifestyle of many preachers and scholars who have gained wide fame and appeal in America in the last century. We should be asking, what is wrong with this picture?
It is not of course easy to sort out the difference between spiritual truth and error, Christological truth and error, ethical truth and error, and this is one of the reasons our author urges that such issues be sifted, critically sifted using reasonably objective criteria.
1 John 4.1-6 is a clarion call to critical thinking about spiritual matters. Open-mindedness can be a good thing, but if you have no criteria by which to sift what you hear and learn, you are in trouble. As my grandmother used to say--- "Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out." This is especially true when it comes to discerning the truth about Jesus, about the Christian life and how it ought to be lived.
Our author views the spiritual world as follows: 1) there is both a Holy Spirit and a Satan both of them capable of inspiring certain thoughts and actions. It is possible our author is also thinking of demons indwelling and inspiring people, but demons are nowhere mentioned in this sermon. What is referred to is the Holy Spirit indwelling believers; 2) the human spirit picks up the signal, so to speak from its spiritual source--- whether God or the Devil; then 3) the spiritual person speaks some inspired and apparently also inspiring words.
As it turns out inspiration is not a guarantee of the content of the inspired statements being true. Thus criteria have to be applied to discern who is a true prophet and who a false one. Our author applies two interesting criteria, and here he is drawing on Deut. 13: 1) the person who makes a true confession about Jesus being the Christ or the Son of God or the Savior come in the flesh is obviously inspired by the Holy Spirit because as 1 Cor. 12.3 says, no one can make such a true confession except by the Holy Spirit; 2) the person who loves the brothers and sisters and lives a righteous and holy life is obviously someone who has the Spirit of God dwelling in him or her. In other words, there is both a test of orthodoxy and a test of orthopraxy to determine whether one is inspired by a true and godly source or not.
Of what relevance is this to us? I am tempted to say with another Biblical writer 'much in every way'. Our culture has a major problem discerning the difference between earnestness and truth, or even honesty and truth, and also between enthusiasm and truth, or 'being inspired or spiritual' and truth.
Our author warns us that inspiration, enthusiasm, earnestness, even honesty about what one believes is no guarantee of truth. You can honestly confess you believe something and be dead wrong. This is precisely why our author relies on more objective criteria-- what does this prophetic voice actually say or teach, and how does this person live. The latter is something on the order of "you shall know the tree by the fruit it bears" but also a 'true Christological confession' is crucial. There is a lot of teaching that goes on in the church today that could not pass the Beloved Disciple's Christological test, much less his sanctification test. In our author's view true love, love of God and of others, has a particular Christological shape-- it looks like the life and teachings of Jesus, and one might add the life and teachings of his eyewitnesses and apostles. It does not look much like the 'true confessions' or lifestyle of many preachers and scholars who have gained wide fame and appeal in America in the last century. We should be asking, what is wrong with this picture?
It is not of course easy to sort out the difference between spiritual truth and error, Christological truth and error, ethical truth and error, and this is one of the reasons our author urges that such issues be sifted, critically sifted using reasonably objective criteria.
1 John 4.1-6 is a clarion call to critical thinking about spiritual matters. Open-mindedness can be a good thing, but if you have no criteria by which to sift what you hear and learn, you are in trouble. As my grandmother used to say--- "Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out." This is especially true when it comes to discerning the truth about Jesus, about the Christian life and how it ought to be lived.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Let Your Conscience Be your Guide? Not Exactly
I am in the process of working on a commentary on the Pastorals and the Johannine Epistles both in one volume. While dealing with the latter I was looking at 1 Jn. 3.19-20 today -- "This is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence, whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and God knows everything."
I came across a wonderful passage in a commentary by William Loader on the Johannine Epistles (pp. 43-44) on this text where he stresses that the writer of 1 John....
"assumes conscience [or heart] may deceive in much the same way as feelings may deceive. Faith means trusting in God’s love and making ourselves available for its action despite what we may feel. Faith cannot be based on feelings. Nor should its criterion of authenticity be absence of struggle. A troubled conscience or mind may coexist with a life of faith. By shifting the basis for confidence from human feelings and inner harmony to hard faith facts about God and behaviour, the author is boycotting a common religious trend, then and now, to make inner human experiences the criteria of spirituality…. It would [also] be wrong to read this passage as devaluing conscience or our thoughts and feelings altogether. They may be a guide, but their quality as guide will be determined by the quality of person who is being guided. The author is not operating with an idealistic notion of conscience as somehow representing the voice of God within….He operates rather with the notion that our thoughts and feelings are part of our own system of awareness which may be misinformed and misguided. There is also a touch of realism in the author’s obvious appreciation that Christians may well at times have to struggle with unresolved tensions within their personalities which have their origin somewhere other than God. There is a profound comfort in the assurance that God is greater than our conscience and knows all (3.20), because this God is the God of love and compassion and may be trusted."
This passage has many insights to be contemplated but I will share just three: 1) a troubled conscience may at times be a good thing (a sign that one is deeply concerned about an injustice), it may at times be a bad thing (a sign of something done wrong), but it is not an infallible thing. The Bible never suggests--- "let your conscience be your guide" or "to your own heart be true". The problem with this sort of advice is that our hearts or minds or consciences are just as fallen and prone to error as our feelings. 2) There are times when persons struggle with being sure they are Christians. They wrestle with feelings of not being good enough, and the like. This text should be a great comfort. God has the trump card--- he can over-rule your feelings or tender conscience and reassure you that you are in right relationship with God even if it does not feel that way; 3)the quality of the conscience depends on the character of the person in whom it resides, and just how sanctified that person truly is. Sometimes mass murderers sleep just fine at night, with no qualms of conscience. Sometimes some Christians have a weak conscience, and find offense in any little thing. Notice how Paul says that the overly scrupulous person in 1 Cor. 8-10 is the Christian who is weak in faith. In either case the conscience is not a good barometer of the truth or what is right. This is why at the end of the day the author of 1 John stresses that we must trust God and place our trust in the Gospel message, not trust ourselves as the last arbiters of truth, right, "and the godly way" and finally 4) the Pauline rule, whatever is not of faith, is sin for you, is a good one, when one is wrestling with one's conscience. As faulty as the conscience may be, it is sometimes a good nagging voice that approves or disapproves what you are contemplating doing. You should listen to the voice, but not give it the final say. That belongs to God and God's Word.
I came across a wonderful passage in a commentary by William Loader on the Johannine Epistles (pp. 43-44) on this text where he stresses that the writer of 1 John....
"assumes conscience [or heart] may deceive in much the same way as feelings may deceive. Faith means trusting in God’s love and making ourselves available for its action despite what we may feel. Faith cannot be based on feelings. Nor should its criterion of authenticity be absence of struggle. A troubled conscience or mind may coexist with a life of faith. By shifting the basis for confidence from human feelings and inner harmony to hard faith facts about God and behaviour, the author is boycotting a common religious trend, then and now, to make inner human experiences the criteria of spirituality…. It would [also] be wrong to read this passage as devaluing conscience or our thoughts and feelings altogether. They may be a guide, but their quality as guide will be determined by the quality of person who is being guided. The author is not operating with an idealistic notion of conscience as somehow representing the voice of God within….He operates rather with the notion that our thoughts and feelings are part of our own system of awareness which may be misinformed and misguided. There is also a touch of realism in the author’s obvious appreciation that Christians may well at times have to struggle with unresolved tensions within their personalities which have their origin somewhere other than God. There is a profound comfort in the assurance that God is greater than our conscience and knows all (3.20), because this God is the God of love and compassion and may be trusted."
This passage has many insights to be contemplated but I will share just three: 1) a troubled conscience may at times be a good thing (a sign that one is deeply concerned about an injustice), it may at times be a bad thing (a sign of something done wrong), but it is not an infallible thing. The Bible never suggests--- "let your conscience be your guide" or "to your own heart be true". The problem with this sort of advice is that our hearts or minds or consciences are just as fallen and prone to error as our feelings. 2) There are times when persons struggle with being sure they are Christians. They wrestle with feelings of not being good enough, and the like. This text should be a great comfort. God has the trump card--- he can over-rule your feelings or tender conscience and reassure you that you are in right relationship with God even if it does not feel that way; 3)the quality of the conscience depends on the character of the person in whom it resides, and just how sanctified that person truly is. Sometimes mass murderers sleep just fine at night, with no qualms of conscience. Sometimes some Christians have a weak conscience, and find offense in any little thing. Notice how Paul says that the overly scrupulous person in 1 Cor. 8-10 is the Christian who is weak in faith. In either case the conscience is not a good barometer of the truth or what is right. This is why at the end of the day the author of 1 John stresses that we must trust God and place our trust in the Gospel message, not trust ourselves as the last arbiters of truth, right, "and the godly way" and finally 4) the Pauline rule, whatever is not of faith, is sin for you, is a good one, when one is wrestling with one's conscience. As faulty as the conscience may be, it is sometimes a good nagging voice that approves or disapproves what you are contemplating doing. You should listen to the voice, but not give it the final say. That belongs to God and God's Word.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
The Durham Tradition and its Exegetes-- an Encomium
We all stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us, especially when we are dealing with the life of the mind. And of course there have been many great schools of Christian thought and of Christian scholarship, but when it comes to Biblical Interpretation there are few if any institutions from the 19th century until now that can claim to have had a grander series of exegetes of the New Testament than the University of Durham, the resting place of the Venerable Bede and Cuthbert and many after them.
My own personal interest in the Durham exegetes began in the 1970s when I was doing my divinity degree in Massachusetts and kept running into the works of various of these scholars over and over again, scholars that my teachers kept referring to as the authorities on this or that or the other NT subject. It was one of the things that led me to study at Durham where I had the privilege of studying under C.K. Barrett, C.E.B. Cranfield, John Rogerson, T.H.L. Parker, Stephen Sykes and others. But before any of these scholars of the 1950s-1980s darkened the doors of Durham, there was B.F. Wescott, there was the amazing J.B. Lightfoot, there was Alfred Plummer, there was H.E.W Turner, and after my time at Durham there has been J.D.G. Dunn and now John Barclay in the Lightfoot Chair in the theology department. There are other names I could gladly mention as well. My point is this-- Good exegetes are not born, they are made and molded, and the process is more helpful and less painful if you are learning from the best.
If it is true that you become what you admire, then there can be little doubt of the great debt I owe to all of these persons whom I have named, and whose works I continue to read with profit long after my time in Durham, and long after many of these men have retired or died. There is a living legacy of scholarship nurtured over generations in the same place which like a clear stream which continues to have it specific places where fish can best be caught, continues to be a place to which I return again and again with profit to get clear answers, intellectual stimulus, spiritual succour, and food for thought.
Hail to Durham whose Norman Cathderal will reach its second millennium birthday perhaps in my son's lifetime, and hail to its new bishop-- my friend Tom Wright who himself now carries forward the wonderful rich tradition of Durham exegetes. To all of us who stand in this tradition I bring reminder of the words of J. Bengel, whom Wesley was wont to quote in his own notable Notes on the NT--- "apply the whole of the text to yourself, apply the whole of yourself to the text." I am proud to be a Durhamite.
My own personal interest in the Durham exegetes began in the 1970s when I was doing my divinity degree in Massachusetts and kept running into the works of various of these scholars over and over again, scholars that my teachers kept referring to as the authorities on this or that or the other NT subject. It was one of the things that led me to study at Durham where I had the privilege of studying under C.K. Barrett, C.E.B. Cranfield, John Rogerson, T.H.L. Parker, Stephen Sykes and others. But before any of these scholars of the 1950s-1980s darkened the doors of Durham, there was B.F. Wescott, there was the amazing J.B. Lightfoot, there was Alfred Plummer, there was H.E.W Turner, and after my time at Durham there has been J.D.G. Dunn and now John Barclay in the Lightfoot Chair in the theology department. There are other names I could gladly mention as well. My point is this-- Good exegetes are not born, they are made and molded, and the process is more helpful and less painful if you are learning from the best.
If it is true that you become what you admire, then there can be little doubt of the great debt I owe to all of these persons whom I have named, and whose works I continue to read with profit long after my time in Durham, and long after many of these men have retired or died. There is a living legacy of scholarship nurtured over generations in the same place which like a clear stream which continues to have it specific places where fish can best be caught, continues to be a place to which I return again and again with profit to get clear answers, intellectual stimulus, spiritual succour, and food for thought.
Hail to Durham whose Norman Cathderal will reach its second millennium birthday perhaps in my son's lifetime, and hail to its new bishop-- my friend Tom Wright who himself now carries forward the wonderful rich tradition of Durham exegetes. To all of us who stand in this tradition I bring reminder of the words of J. Bengel, whom Wesley was wont to quote in his own notable Notes on the NT--- "apply the whole of the text to yourself, apply the whole of yourself to the text." I am proud to be a Durhamite.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
The Validity of Religious Experience
How many times have we heard the phrase "I cannot deny my experience"? This is all the more the cry when it comes to religious experience. But in fact the issue is not the reality or the clarity of the experience, the issue is the source, the content and trajectory of the experience. What distinguishes a good from a bad religious experience in part depends on whether it has come from the one true God, or from some other source. It also depends on what that experience leads, impells, or prompts you to do. 'You shall know the tree by the fruit it bears...." And according to the author of 1 John, there are even specific criteria by which we may be able to tell whether a particular religious experience is from God or comports with the Christian faith.
In his classic commentary on the Johannine Epistles, C.H. Dodd says this about the validity of religious experience:
"We may have the feeling of awareness of God, of union with Him, but how shall we know that such experience corresponds to reality? It is clear that no amount of clearness or strength in the experience itself can guarantee its validity, any more than the extreme vividness of a dream leads us to suppose that it is anything but a dream. If, however, we accept the revelation of God in Christ, then we must believe that any experience of God which is valid has an ethical quality defined by what we know of Christ. It will require with it a renewed fidelity to His teaching and example. The writer does not mean that only those who perfectly obey Christ and follow His example can be said to have the experience of God. That would be to affirm the sinlessness of Christians in a sense which he has repudiated [see 1 Jn. 1]. But unless the experience includes a setting of the affections and will in the direction of the moral principles of the Gospel, it is no true experience of God, in any Christian sense."
In 1 John 2 the Beloved Disciple suggests a series of moral tests to see if one's experience is of God, for example-- does it produce behavior like the behavior of Jesus? Does it lead one to love God with one's whole heart and one's neighbor as self, or is it narcissistic in character? Does it lead to holy living or does it lead to questionable beliefs and behavior? Does it lead to moving on faith, or does it lead to fear-based practices, since the experience of the real love of God casts out all fear? Does it lead to the belief that Jesus is the Son of God come in the flesh, as the Johannine Epistles put it, or to some sort of heterodox belief about Jesus?
At the end of the day what the author of the Johannine Epistles is suggesting is that there are some external tests, tests grounded in what God's Word says and what Christ's character manifests by which we may and should evaluate our experiences including even very genuine religious experiences. As it turns out, the way to tell the difference between heart burn and a heart strangely warmed, both genuine experiences, is by evaluating it by using external and objective criteria. In an affective age, this is all the more crucial because feelings are often deception and a notably bad guide to truth or the goodness of something.
In his classic commentary on the Johannine Epistles, C.H. Dodd says this about the validity of religious experience:
"We may have the feeling of awareness of God, of union with Him, but how shall we know that such experience corresponds to reality? It is clear that no amount of clearness or strength in the experience itself can guarantee its validity, any more than the extreme vividness of a dream leads us to suppose that it is anything but a dream. If, however, we accept the revelation of God in Christ, then we must believe that any experience of God which is valid has an ethical quality defined by what we know of Christ. It will require with it a renewed fidelity to His teaching and example. The writer does not mean that only those who perfectly obey Christ and follow His example can be said to have the experience of God. That would be to affirm the sinlessness of Christians in a sense which he has repudiated [see 1 Jn. 1]. But unless the experience includes a setting of the affections and will in the direction of the moral principles of the Gospel, it is no true experience of God, in any Christian sense."
In 1 John 2 the Beloved Disciple suggests a series of moral tests to see if one's experience is of God, for example-- does it produce behavior like the behavior of Jesus? Does it lead one to love God with one's whole heart and one's neighbor as self, or is it narcissistic in character? Does it lead to holy living or does it lead to questionable beliefs and behavior? Does it lead to moving on faith, or does it lead to fear-based practices, since the experience of the real love of God casts out all fear? Does it lead to the belief that Jesus is the Son of God come in the flesh, as the Johannine Epistles put it, or to some sort of heterodox belief about Jesus?
At the end of the day what the author of the Johannine Epistles is suggesting is that there are some external tests, tests grounded in what God's Word says and what Christ's character manifests by which we may and should evaluate our experiences including even very genuine religious experiences. As it turns out, the way to tell the difference between heart burn and a heart strangely warmed, both genuine experiences, is by evaluating it by using external and objective criteria. In an affective age, this is all the more crucial because feelings are often deception and a notably bad guide to truth or the goodness of something.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Save Colossae
Having spent parts of the last two summers in Turkey, one of the dismaying things is seeing the Biblical sites which desperately need to be excavated but are untouched. One such site which has never been dug is Colossae. The city was destroyed by earthquake in the mid 60s A.D. and has lain pretty much untouched since then. It is a small but manageable sized mound and would not take years and years to uncover. You can see the outlines of an Odeon on one side of the tel, and farmers are still planting wheat on the other side of the tel. It is pristine and crying out for excavation. Something needs to be done and soon, because recently someone has tried to dig a trench or hole in the site to find antiquities and pilfer them. The site is fortunately now guarded at least part of the time, but the only way to really protect this precious site is to excavate it and bring it under the protection of the antiquities authorities in Turkey.
The Turkish government is happy to have a proper foreign team dig the site though they require quite naturally the supervision of a Turkish archaeologist, they charge a $50,000 for permission to dig, and of course the artifacts need to go to Turkish museums. I am wondering if there is someone or someones out there in cyberspace who would be willing to underwrite one season's worth of digging, to see what we can find and whether it is worth pursuing for a longer period of time. If there are such folks, I have the contacts in Turkey, and would be glad to help facilitate this. I would love to take a team from Asbury and elsewhere over there for a dig, and we have many students who would go and dig as long as they had sustenance to help with this project by providing cheap labor. If anyone is interested, contact me via my email address--- benw333@hotmail.com. This is a project worth doing for sure, and who knows what lies beneath the surface of that mound? It could be, as Paul says in Colossians, a revelation.
The Turkish government is happy to have a proper foreign team dig the site though they require quite naturally the supervision of a Turkish archaeologist, they charge a $50,000 for permission to dig, and of course the artifacts need to go to Turkish museums. I am wondering if there is someone or someones out there in cyberspace who would be willing to underwrite one season's worth of digging, to see what we can find and whether it is worth pursuing for a longer period of time. If there are such folks, I have the contacts in Turkey, and would be glad to help facilitate this. I would love to take a team from Asbury and elsewhere over there for a dig, and we have many students who would go and dig as long as they had sustenance to help with this project by providing cheap labor. If anyone is interested, contact me via my email address--- benw333@hotmail.com. This is a project worth doing for sure, and who knows what lies beneath the surface of that mound? It could be, as Paul says in Colossians, a revelation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)